My brother is in prison for murder. He did it and confessed to it. Still, during the trial the detectives saw fit to lie under oath, and bring forth evidence of his character (his diary) obtained illegally (they lied and said it was obtained via a neighbor who found it in a trash can in his house 0_o). All of this even though they had an open and shut case. It blew my mind that in a case that they had in the bag and where the evidence of the crime itself was enough to put him away forever they still did all of that. The story of the diary was especially ridiculous. It's not like the detectives told some whoppers just to make things easier on themselves. They lied about all sorts of small things, like how his arrest actually happened. From that I learned to fear the system. If they'll do that with a slam dunk case, what will they do to get a conviction when the case is a tough one? How many men has this state (Texas) executed as a result of this system?
It's quite fascinating really. The police officer he has come up to speak talks about some of the tricks they use to get people to confess and they talk about word tricks they use to get convictions even of innocent people. It's pretty terrifying.
What I find interesting is how many TV shows depict suspects running their mouths to the police like they're all buddies. You're NEVER supposed to do that. Even innocent people can very easily incriminate themselves, as they show in the above video.
Speaking of Texas and executions, have you ever read about Todd Willingham?
Willingham was convicted of "multiple infanticide" for burning his house down with his daughters still inside. He maintained his innocence until the end, and finally found a fire investigator to review the case shortly before he was scheduled to be executed. The investigator provided conclusive evidence that he DID NOT start the fire, but the Board of Pardons and Paroles apparently didn't even read it:
“The only reasonable conclusion is that the governor’s office and the Board of Pardons and Paroles ignored scientific evidence.”
And so, sadly, he was executed.
There are so many WTFs in this case, which is probably partly why the article is so long. One thing that stood out is how the witness testimony changed from "he was frantically trying to put the fire out" to "he didn't seem to be doing much of all" after he was charged with starting the fire (the witnesses became biased). And how the fire investigators could be high school drop outs with minimal training, and how they used gut feelings and super outdated science while investigating the case. Their investigation is really what caused him to be convicted. Pretty sad story, and it seems to happen a lot like this, especially in Texas.
