Kelo v. City of New London

Kelo v. City of New London was the 2005 Supreme Court case where the court, against all American precedent and sound reason, said that it would be just fine for the government to eminent domain anyone's property and give it to a private enterprise, like a Wal-Mart, if they said they would pay the government more taxes on the property than the owner would.

wikipedia article

Rejecting this practice, Texans overwhelmingly voted just the other day for a constitutional amendment to keep governments from using eminent domain to take property for private enterprise in our state. Most other states have taken similar steps to stop state and local governments from pulling this crap.

Dallas Morning News article

Recently, as stated in the wikipedia article...
"In September 2009, the land where Susette Kelo's home had once stood was an empty lot, and the promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. On November 9th 2009, it was reported that Pfizer had abandoned the site and is "considering selling, leasing, or other options" for the property."

New London took this lady's property for absolutely nothing, and the Supreme Court said that was a peachy idea.

An innocent man?

This August, 2009 editorial, The troubling case of Cameron Todd Willingham, in the Dallas Morning News references a report conducted by Craig Beyler, of Hughes Associates Inc., for the Texas Forensic Science Commission regarding cases against two men convicted of arson resulting murder, and which determined that, “arson investigators helped assemble cases against both men with a shaky understanding of scientific fact, no clear methodology and a disregard of established protocols.”

In one case, the conviction was overturned on an unrelated issue, and the individual eventually was set free. In the other case, however, the individual, Cameron Todd Willingham, was convicted and executed in Huntsville in 2004, based at least partially on very questionable findings of arson investigators.

The editorial goes on to say that it is auspicious that the relatively new Texas Forensic Science Commission looked in to these two questionable cases in some of its first inquiries; and then posits that no amount of flawed forensics is acceptable when sending someone to death row.

Since this editorial was published, Texas Governor Rick Perry has reshuffled the Forensic Science Commission, and effectively delayed its findings in these cases.

Additional reporting also indicated forensic reports commissioned by other organizations have been universally critical of the findings and testimony of the original fire investigators in the Willingham case, and also of the Perry decision to shake up the commission.

These developments in the Willingham case have garnered the attention of both the Texas and national media as evidenced by this article from November 9, on CNN.com, and this article from September 7, in the New Yorker. All these articles opine that Texas may have executed an innocent man in Cameron Todd Willingham.

I became aware of the issues around the Willingham case a couple of months ago, and started researching the details out of curiosity. I wondered, "Had Texas really executed a demonstratively innocent guy?"

The facts were that, in 1991, out-of-work 22 year-old Cameron Todd Willingham was a convicted burglar and thief. There were also substantiated accusations that he had a temper and would beat his wife, Stacy, even when she was pregnant. Some claimed that he had previously tortured animals and demonstrated other sociopathic tendencies. Others, like his parole officer and a judge he had appeared before, said he was polite and caring.

On, December 23, Willingham claimed that while Stacy was away shopping, his 2 year-old daughter, Amber, awakened him and he realized the house was on fire. He said told the 2 year-old to “get out of the house” while he attempted to rescue his 1 year-old twins from their bedroom. He claimed he could not find them due to smoke, and exited the house through the front door with superficial burns. He watched the house burn from the front yard and the girls died in the fire. Some neighbors and EMS said he appeared hysterical and made attempts to re-enter the house for the children.

Subsequently, investigators described the fire as arson due to “multiple fires being set”, and the use of “accelerants”. Willingham was charged and convicted of murdering his children and eventually executed for it.

At the trial, the prosecution used "expert" testimony describing the fire as arson, along with statements made by Willingham with significantly varying accounts of the events and his actions during the fire. He had given varying accounts of which parts of the house were on fire at different times, sometimes changing his story to an earlier version, and eventually admitted that he hadn’t even gone to the twin’s bedroom for them before exiting himself. In addition, there was testimony by some witnesses that described Willingham’s behavior as odd during the fire. They said the attempts to re-enter the house were half-hearted, that his hysterical demeanor seemed staged, and that they found it odd he would take time to move a vehicle away from the house while his daughters burned inside.

After hearing all the evidence, the Corsicana jury convicted him of murder.

Currently, many in the anti-death penalty community and in the media have championed the idea that Cameron Todd Willingham was railroaded into the death chamber. Much has been made of the admittedly faulty evidence of arson presented at trial. Maybe the Forensic Science Commission can use that faulty evidence as a catalyst to improve expert testimony in Texas trials. I certainly hope so. But before we all jump on the bandwagon and start boo-hooing the state sponsored demise of Cameron Todd Willingham, I would say let’s consider...arson evidence aside...whether the dude was actually guilty of the heinous crime he was convicted for.

The man was undeniably a burglar and a thief. Not the most trustworthy kind of guy. He was also apparently a domestic abuser. He beat on his wife, even when she was pregnant; and whether he had beaten his kids or not, he would have eventually gotten around to it. He was such a bad husband that Stacy had told him she and the kids were going to leave him after the first of the year, 1992.

There were also those accusations of sociopathic behavior such as previously abusing animals. The glowing characterizations of his parole officer and former judge could be described as a sociopath charming and manipulating those in authority.

But then there are those pesky reports by contemporary arson experts that say there’s no way arson could be proved by the forensic evidence gathered; well, what’s not being highlighted is that the contemporary reports do not rule out arson, either. There are just so many ways to set something on fire. Not all involve accelerants or methods that leave trace evidence…

And lastly, there's something that occurred long after the trial when Willingham’s ex-wife, Stacy, went to visit him on death row…. According to her, Willingham told her that he had felt that if Stacy, “didn’t have my girls I couldn’t leave him and that I could never have Amber or the twins with anyone else but him”.

So, should Willingham have been given a new trial based on something like “mistake of fact” with the arson evidence? Possibly... hell, probably! I’m sure the flawed testimony of the original fire investigators had a major impact on the jury’s verdict.

Like the above referenced editorial says, all testimony at any trial should be as accurate as humanly possible. If it isn’t, of course that’s a huge problem.

But, regarding the question of whether Cameron Todd Willingham was actually a sociopath who murdered his children, I think we can defer to the person who knew him best, his ex-wife, and her opinion. Yes, he did.

You can read Stacy’s statement here.

It's for my...ah...sleep apnea...dude.

This recent article in the Austin Chronicle describes the U.S. Attorney General's decision to direct the Department of Justice to cease to pursue "individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana" in those states where it is currently legal. This is in line with an Obama Administration promise to do so, and he decision is presented as a way to devote law enforcement assets to more pressing needs; even though the DOJ still recognizes marijuana sales in the U.S. as the "single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels".

The article goes on to say that even though people with a legitimate medical use will not be pursued, shops that sell medical marijuana outside the state guidelines will still be pursued by federal law enforcement. It also states that U. S. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, was less than pleased that federal law enforcement is choosing to not enforce federal laws. The article wraps up by saying that medi-pot-law advocates were pleased with the decision and that they hoped the new federal policy would influence other states considering medical marijuana laws to pass them.

I thought the tone of the article indicated approval by the author of the Attorney General's decision....not surprising, it was in the Austin Chronicle for cryin' out loud.

I guess the thing that struck me about the article, and the whole "medical" marijuana debate actually, is how such a disproportionally large number of people seem to be interested in the medical treatment plans of a relative few seriously ill people... This strikes me as very disingenuous.

I'm thinking that most of the most vocal advocates are just interested in their having "legitimate" medical marijuana vendors as another avenue to obtain dope and to get high...and don't give a flip about any sick people. They just view it as one more step to universally legal marijuana usage. To say that they are advocating out of real concern for the well-being of others, I think, degrades the truly ill.

The important concrete point to take away from this is that the present administration supports relaxed enforcement of existing federal drug laws.... and is setting policy to reflect that position.

They are doing this as my friend's in California tell me that "Medical" marijuana stores are popping up all over the state, and that shady doctor's are writing prescriptions for anyone for a fee. They also say there's no way of determining where the dope these shops are selling truly comes from. It may very well be cartel dope; and much of it probably is as apparently no one is really checking. I'm sure there's only going to be more of this in the states that authorize the sales of "medical" marijuana, especially with the federal government looking the other way.

I honestly, don't know where I truly stand on the overall legalization of marijuana. I think I may actually lean toward it, but using sick people's misfortune to as an avenue to satisfy one's vices, is....well...seedy.

11/17/09 This person's article on their site pretty much mirrors my thoughts and observations on the use of marijuana. I think it's a pretty unbiased and accurate assessment.

The beginning.

This is my first attempt at creating a "blog", although I tend to "blog" to my friends pretty frequently...whether they want me to, or not. I often just feel like I need to tell them how their thinking is sideways, and that they know they should just relent and conform to "RONTHINK".

I'm starting this to fulfill a course requirement. But who knows? Maybe it will morph into the next "Wonkette"!!