And Justice For Some
There’s a story in the Sunday NYT about the Medill Innocence Project at Northwestern, which gives eager young journalists an opportunity to do real journalism. I was never personally involved in the Innocence Project during my tenure there as I was too busy chasing down stories in Skokie-area nursing homes. (GIVE IT UP, MEEMAW! DID YOU STEAL THE EXTRA TAPIOCA FROM THE GAME ROOM??)
The Medill project, run by Professor David Protess, is rooted in investigative journalism and criminal justice, and, over the past 10 years, has helped free 11 inmates who were wrongly convicted. What’s wrong with you meddling kids? Couldn’t get into a fraternity? Well now some unhappy prosecutors, understandably upset that their days of locking up innocent men are numbered, have subpoenaed the students’ grades, class syllabus, expense reports, and e-mails in a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate them. Well if I know Medill journalism students, they won’t be broken that easily. Unlike me. I’d sing like a canary.
The Cook County state’s attorney’s office issued the subpoena due to the Project’s most recent case involving Anthony McKinney, a man convicted of murder 31 years ago. Prosecutors claim that one of the reasons they need the records is because students may have believed they would receive better grades if their reporting led to his exoneration. Yes, I’m sure the kids gave up their college years toiling away 24-7 on the Innocence Project so they could get a better grade. Not because they’re interested in something, you know, meaningful.
Which brings me to senior editor Michael Hall’s exclusive interview with a man named Ernest Willis, who knew Cameron Todd Willingham from the time they spent on death row. The two men were convicted of nearly identical crimes, given the same sentence, and ultimately vindicated by a series of forensic scientists. The difference? Willis walked off death row a free man.
Here’s the video.
“I believe in my heart and soul that [Willingham] was an innocent man. I believe Texas killed an innocent man.”
Tagged: cameron todd willingham, ernest willis, medill innocence project, rick perry.
Dr J says:
“What’s wrong with you Medilling kids?”
I fixed it for you.
Reply »
Cow Droppings says:
Interesting. Willingham’s ex-wife doesn’t agree, and in her first public comments to the FWST yesterday she said he was a murderer, and he explained why he did it.
Reply »
centexliberal says:
cd…I could not find this quote in yesterday’s FWST. Could you give us a link?
Reply »
ftwsteve says:
Ex spouses are always interested in the “truth”, never to get even.
Reply »
Rog says:
I haven’t seen the FWST story, but his wife also previously said that he went to his death proclaiming his innocence.
And it needs to be repeated. There may have been enough evidence to keep Willingham in prison for life, but he was executed on the basis of bad science.
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
Wow. An anglo male face telling the story of failed science and improper administration of the death penalty. In 44 other states, that story might have legs.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Since when was Willingham “vindicated?” Not even the Beyler report says it wasn’t arson. As the Fifth Circuit notes, when it denied his stay of execution in 2004, this “new” science was available at the time of his trial in August 1992 and certainly during the series of state and federal habeas petitions he filed in 1996 and 1998. Translation: the courts repeatedly considered these new options based on the “new” science and rejected them.
Here’s a question for all you Willingham apologists: they lived in a one story house. If it’s true what he said (although his story kept changing, but nobody seems to care about that fact, caring more about the consistency of the mother of the dead children) that his 2 year old daughter came into his room to alert him to the fire, why wouldn’t he simply open a window and place his child outside of the home, and out of danger, rather than what he says he did, which was tell her — a 2 year old — to get out of the house? Since when does a 2 year old have the maturity or problem solving skills needed to get herself out of a burning house, a frightening situation, particularly when the back door had been blocked with the refrigerator… cause, you know, that’s what normal people do…. randomly place their refrigerator in front of a door they normally use rather than keep it, call me crazy, where the electrical outlet for the appliance is…
Reply »
Mike Hall Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Actually, the Beyler report DOES say it wasn’t arson. The last sentence concludes: “A finding of arson could not be sustained based upon the standard of care expressed by NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation texts and papers in the period 1980–1992.”
As for whether Willingham behaved rationally in a fire, I doubt it–but who knows what he or she would do differently? And the whole frig-blocking-the-door thing was not thought by either the detective and the fire chief who worked the case to have had any nefarious purpose.
I’m not a Willingham apologist: He was a bad guy who did a lot of bad things in his life. But I’ve seen no sound, coherent evidence that he set a fire that killed his kids and that would justify his being executed by the state.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
A jury of 12 of his peers, state appeals courts, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Fifth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court, the Board of Pardons and Paroles, all of whom have probably spent more time examining this case, the evidence and the appeals than you have, all disagree with you.
Reply »
Eileen Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I don’t know. I’m pretty sure Mike looked into this more than the CCA. I think they close their doors at 5PM every day.
Reply »
Mike Hall Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Thank goodness juries don’t get it wrong. As for the CCA and appellate courts, see the case of Ernest Willis elsewhere on this site.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Sorry, no. Beyler, in fact, does not rule out arson. Don’t believe me? From this blog’s beloved DMN: “Fire expert Craig Beyler, whose report for the Texas Forensic Science Commission challenged conclusions in the state’s arson investigation, did not rule out arson.”
Reply »
Eileen Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Will all due respect, the DMN has it wrong.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
You’re the one who posted the link to this DMN article.
Reply »
Mike Hall Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
That’s true–Beyler couldn’t rule out that Willingham set the fire with a death ray. Hence, he did not rule out arson.
Reply »
Austinmom Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Hey Anny – if you’re going to post inflammatory remarks, grow a pair and get a screen name.
Reply »
Don't Mess w/ Pink says:
Does anyone have a link to sources for what anonymous and cd say? Because I haven’t seen it in the news accounts I’ve read. I’m interested.
Reply »
potted meat says:
My understanding is there were 2, that is TWO, I say there , Kingfish, refridgerator, the new PLUGGED IN ONE, and the old one which had not been removed yet, which was in front of the door.
IE:The ‘blocked door’ means nothing
I hate defending this guy, but , in reality , you do not know what you would do or say in a fire: I would have carried the 2 year old out, I think, but I don’t know. If the 2 year old had the savvy to come to warn the dad, then the likelyhood that it could go outside on it’s own does not seem that unlikely.
I was not there.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
You obviously have never raised a 2 year old… and it was a “her,” not an “it.”
Maybe, just maybe, the fact that he didn’t carry the 2 year old out to safety goes to show what a lying scumbag this guy was, caring more about his own safety than the child’s? I don’t know a single, loving parent who wouldn’t walk through fire and across broken glass to save their children from possible death, even if it meant death to the parent in the process.
And recall that he said, at one point, he had to kick down the door to get out. How did he expect a 2 year old to kick down a door to flee to safety? At the point he realizes he’s going to have to forcefully kick down a door, why doesn’t he go back for the 2 year old, since clearly a 2 year old can’t kick down a door.
Finally, I’ve never see it reported about the 2 refrigerators. Can you give me a link?
Reply »
potted meat Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I raised 3 kids. They knew knew to go thru a door. but your comment about him kicking down a door does not bode well. No 2 year old gonna do that.
Did not know if ‘it’ was a boy or a tgirl.
the 2 fridge deal was in one of the former blogs on here.
Hey , I am for justice., but the law was circumvented: I do not believe Perry reviewed the fax.
To me this is about the Perry coverup and member dismissal.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
How was the law circumvented when this guy got the benefit of legal review at every level? He had something like 9 appeals, every single one denied. The expert’s opinion was considered and rejected by the CCA, the Fifth Circuit and the US Supreme Court.
This guy had more chances at mercy than his children did. That is what this case is about.
Reply »
Eileen Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Why don’t you ask Governor Perry why he let Ernest Willis walk off death row? His case mirrored Willingham’s. Except he was exonerated. Interesting, right? Maybe you think Willis wasn’t as much of a monster?
Reply »
potted meat Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
There was a 5 page fax 90 minutes before his execution, that all the him-hawing answers indicate was never read by the guv. It would have stopped the execution.
This will come out in testamony in a hearing, the hearing that hasn’t happened because goodhair canned everyone…….
Like in all politics, anny, the coverup gets ya every time……..
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Sad commentary on the press coverage of this story that this information has not been included, huh?
The mother’s full statement can be found here:
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/v-print/story/1709042.html
Good luck not shedding a tear reading it.
The Fifth Circuit opinions is not online, but can be found in West Law, No. 04-10179, IN RE: Cameron Todd Willingham, 02/17/04. What I quoted is found at the bottom of page 2 to the top of page 3 of the 4 page opinion. The whole thing is worth reading, particularly on page 4: “The expert’s opinion is, of course, no more than an opinion and does not constitute a prima facie showing that no crime in fact was committed. The expert’s opinion does not address Willingham’s confession or the additional circumstantial evidence that we have noted, upon which the jury’s verdict of guilty rested.”
Reply »
Eileen Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Sad commentary on the press coverage indeed. You might want to check out DMN’s smackdown of Kuykendall’s statement:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-willingham_27edi.State.Edition1.2b8f737.html
Reply »
Anonymous says:
This DMN editorial “smackdown” ranks right up there with CNN fact checking a SNL skit. What motivation does this poor woman have to lie? She acknowledges that, at the time, she wanted to believe her husband and in fact testified on his behalf. Then he told her the truth and she remained silent. Her reward? An obscenity laced tirade from Willingham directed at her — his true final statement, not the claim of innocence as the press wants readers to think. Now she breaks her silence, and her veracity is questioned? Again, I ask, to what end does she now lie? She had been living a quiet life, out of the spotlight, her children are dead, and the press and the anti-death penalty activists are trying to make a poster child out of the man who confessed the crime to her.
Reply »
Don't Mess w/ Pink Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Well, actually, the DMN piece points out that her statements have been inconsistent, which is a valid point — one in fact used by Willgham’s detractors against him. And I’m not particularly impressed one way or the other by the appellate court’s refusal to overturn the verdict. The burden shouldered by a defendant seeking to overturn a jury verdic is an extremely heavy one. One may be innocent in fact, yet not obtain a reversal. Indeed, that’s been demonstrated countless times in the Innocence Project cases where but for new DNA evidence, the defendants would still be wallowing in prison.
As to Willingham being a monster … that may be the crux of the issue here. Maybe no one really cared whether he was innocent or not because he was an asshole. But that’s not how our society is supposed to work. Which brings up an encounter I had with my father once when I was in law school. (Apologies to those who’ve already heard this.) My father, a lawyer, is a conservative law-and-order type. But he also believes passionately in the balance in our judicial system that can only come from the vigorous protection of the rights of each and every accused in each and every case. One day I mentioned off-handedly that I did not think I could ever defend someone accused of rape. Well, my god you would have thought I said I was going to murder my mother or something. He bowed up and in his booming voice said something to the effect of “Well, Missy, then you may as well quit law school right now and forget becoming a member of the bar because if that’s your attitude, you are not worthy.” He went on, and this is almost word for word, because I’ll never forget it, “Our system and in fact our very survival as a civil society depends on a vigorous defense of every single person accused of a crime. If the protections embodied in the Consitution are not available to everyone, even the worst of the worst, then they are not available in any real sense to anyone.” He was right, of course.
This is a link to a pretty good story on the whole sordid affair.
http://www.star-telegram.com/local/story/1709067.html?storylink=digger-topic Maybe he really did tell the 2-year-old to get out while he looked for the others. Maybe he was wracked with guilt for not doing more. His hair was singed and he was burned. Maybe his wife didn’t ask for clemency because she wanted him to die, and now can’t face herself. I don’t know. And that’s the point. No one does.
I’m really not judging the Governor at this point. I don’t know what he knew about the report that came across his desk prior to the execution and I don’t have a good sense right now of whether it should have been looked into further. But when someone’s life is on the line, careful consideration should be the order of the day. It seems to me that’s the real issue. Was that consideration given or was the report callously disregarded? We may never know.
Reply »
Eileen says:
Anyone interested in reading the actual Beyler forensics report – which also compares the Willingham case to Ernest Willis – can download it off Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
Reply »
potted meat says:
just goolge his name and ‘2 refridgerators’ and there are all kinds of references, including his wife saying they [fridges] had been like that for months, and the police stating that the refridge was never a question in the ‘arson’…..
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
I don’t know why we’re re-examining a dead man’s trial. Who cares if he was innocent or guilty at this point – the state put him to death. That’s a fact no one can dispute at this point.
In 2005, the Legislature – from a bill authored by Republican State Rep. Joe Driver and signed into law by Governor Rick Perry – created the TX Forensic Science Commission, whose purpose was to look at all controversial claims of forensic science evidence. Following the instructions from the Legislature, the Commission had done that by asking Dr. Beyler for a report.
Then Perry said, “No! I don’t want that hearing!” and replaced the commissioners w/ new ones, effectively canceling the scheduled hearing. Beyler’s testimony was only instructive in so much as it was going to give the TX Forensic Science Commission some guidelines on how to proceed w/ examining other forensic science evidence. With those reviews/feedback, they were going to examine labs around the state and make sure that any forensic science evidence used in a trial (which everyone knows is the most trusted kind of evidence) is as fair, accurate, and technologically sound as possible.
That’s it. The Commission wanted to strengthen our criminal justice system, to make sure criminals had rock-solid convictions and no innocent people were put in prison based on bad evidence. That was their whole purpose.
Forget the whole Willingham case – why the hell did Perry thwart the independent review of a state-sanctioned Commission whose sole purpose was to strengthen the criminal justice system?
Reply »
Don't Mess w/ Pink Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Well, there are two issues. The one you lay out about the Forensic Science Commission. And then the question about whether the governor should have intervened prior to the execution based on a report that the evidence of arson was faulty.
Reply »
West Texas Hillbilly says:
I think we should dig Willingham up, frame him for the mansion arson, and kill him again.
/Perry thwarted independent review out of fear. Case closed.
Reply »
potted meat says:
Perry’s incompetence/inconsideration would have been exposed, yet again.
Between the roads, the Mansion, the hurricane (a mini Katrina like scene still exists after Ike), and the embarassment he has created by opening his mouth for the Nation to hear… (he is just one wittled twig from Glen Beck in some eyes), he sees this as a real case of showing his xss: a man died, a bad person, perhaps, but as DMwP sow elequently expressed, in her recitation of her father….[I'm paraphrasing here] …just for one, justice for all.
I won’t hesitate to say I hope this brings Perry down. I hate what he has done to Texas, and Texans.
He is just a mini W, a real eff up.
Reply »
sam says:
Nothing was thwarted. Perry did not reappoint some commission members after their terms ended.
Any of you who think he’s innocent want to explain why Amber was found in the same bed Willingham said he arose from, with the soles of her feet burned, face down, and the sheet drawn up to her shoulders?
Reply »
potted meat Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 10:10 am
She got in the bed? Not to hard to surmise.
see P’s post on what people do in a fire…..
I have never been in a fire like that [thank God], but I have been a ‘first civilian responder’ at more than one critical incident, and , while I acted, others stood in shock, or??
and the relative ‘danger’ to us as was minimal …I think.
I have always joked that *I* should run FEMA, because I react so decisively in a crisis, or with a deadline: of course part B is I can’t get the trash out on time easily; doesn’t everyone run to the curb when they hear the big truck? Others freeze. or make poor choices…
Reply »
Eileen Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 10:44 am
We’re getting away from the science here. Or do you not believe in DNA exonerations for bad guys who were wrongly convicted?
Reply »
potted meat Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Yes maam.
Reply »
Pinkles says:
I hope this brings Perry down too, but I don’t harbor much hope that things’ll get better, given our “option” in Hutch
and as for Nony’s romanticized bit about parents and the gallant things they’ll do in fires? Indeed some will risk their lives for their kids. And others won’t. Over the years I’ve heard all sorts of stories on how people, parents, react in fires or other crises. Some subsequently diagnosed w/PTSD or anxiety disorders as a direct result of the trauma, and the “if-I-had-onlies” and the “coulda-shoulda’s”
You never know until it happens to you, and even then, all you know is what you’d do.
Or what you think or SAY you’d do. But I pray it never does.
Reply »
sam says:
She got in the bed? Not to hard to surmise.
see P’s post on what people do in a fire…..
No, it is impossible to surmise. We’re not talking about “people” we’re talking about a two year old.
He said that he put the twins and Amber in their room and put the child gate up. He then went to bed. He was awoken by Amber’s screams. He put on his pants and walked pass the kids room which was across from his bedroom and a few feet down, to the kitchen, and opened the door. He then walked back to the kids room, stepped over the child gate, claims to have searched around, stepped back over the child gate, and went out the front door.
There was only one way out of the kids bedroom and it was blocked by a child gate. But, some how we are to believe she got out, burned her feet, climbed into his bed, laid down on her stomach, and pulled the sheet up to her shoulders, and he never saw her. What nonsense.
Reply »
sam says:
Since, the few who answered tried to change the subject and didn’t answer the question, do any of you who think he’s innocent want to explain why Amber was found in the same bed Willingham said he arose from, with the soles of her feet burned, face down, and the sheet drawn up to her shoulders?
Reply »
Dr J says:
Sam, the fire science experts concluded from their examinations of the evidence that there was no arson, and that by definition no crime occurred. End of story.
Unless you’re a fire expert yourself and have another interpretation of the evidence you’d like the Forensic Sciences Commission to consider the next time they meet (when do you suppose that will be?), you can be quiet now.
Reply »
Pinkles says:
Debating whether or not the guy “deserved” to die is not gonna get you far if you’re one to think that Perry is a righteous dude. Fact is, this stinks to high heaven, his purty face and perfume don’t cover the fact that he’s shit all over himself trying to extricate himself from this mess.
And dammit if Hutch don’t help at all. Dammit all to hell.
Reply »
sam says:
Dr J:
I am not a fire expert, however, I can read and understand what the experts said and didn’t say:
“The most recent expert to file a report, Craig Beyler, criticized the original investigation and said it didn’t prove arson, but acknowledged that his report also didn’t rule out arson. “That is correct,” he said in an interview about his report. “Some people are interpreting it more strongly.” DMN 10/25/09
Gerald Hurst filed an affidavit with the court also criticizing the original investigation but said, “It was impossible to determine the origin of the fire.” New Yorker Mag 9/07/09
And until you can respond honestly and not misrepresent the evidence, you can be quiet.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Thanks for letting everyone know when they were allowed to talk and when they weren’t. That helps me out a lot.
I (thankfully!) am able to respond honestly and not misrepresent the evidence. So here goes:
Rick Perry signed the bill creating the Texas Forensic Science into law in 2005, and upon putting his name on the bill acknowledge that the Commission’s purpose is to investigate “any allegation of professional negligence or misconduct that would substantially affect the integrity of the results of a forensic analysis conducted by an accredited laboratory, facility or entity.”
An independent review conducted by the Texas Forensic Science Commission was brought to a halt upon Governor Rick Perry replacing three of the commissioners – a replacement none of them expected and was surprising to many across the state. The replacement occurred after the Beyler report was public, but before it was brought up in the public hearing the Commission had scheduled.
Perry’s replacement of three commissioners has brought to a halt all progress the Commission had made and was intending to make on review of the state’s use of forensic science evidence in Texas’ criminal justice system.
Are those enough facts?
Reply »
Pinkles says:
I can’t believe we’ve done been told to shut up
“unless you can respond honestly and not misrepresent the evidence”
honestly, you sound like my kids ;) Sam-I-Am
Just curious, does your little mandate go for Perry too?
Or just those of us who are honest enough to expect some decency out of the man?
Reply »
sam says:
Pinkles and Phillip Martin:
Wow. One, does your little mandate go for Dr. J, too? Neither of you were bothered or objected when the exact same thing was said to me by Dr. J and to whom I was responding. Not very honest or decent of you.
Two, Dr. J’s assertion that the experts concluded that there was no arson is a blatant misrepresentation of what the experts actually said which I bothered to quote and source in my previous post.
Are those enough facts?
No. The bill you refer to did not create life time appointments to the commission. Nor is there any right to be reappointed. Their surprise is disingenuous. The reappointments created a delay until the new commissioners could review what had already been done by the commission. The final report was not expected to be released until sometime next spring, anyway. Frankly, the commission has been dragging its feet for a long time. It was created in 2005 and they didn’t hire Beyler until a year ago and didn’t receive his report until a year later. Somebody needed a kick in the pants.
Reply »
Pinkles says:
I think you’d get farther if you ask rather than assume what bothers whom, and when. And you’d get even farther if you’d own up to your subjcetivity rather than telling others to “be quiet” because you and your “facts” have spoken.
Fact: You’re defending Perry, not “facts”. Get off your duff and admit it…but you want to sell a semblance of logic and objectivity, so you “answered” with other questions. You want “cred” for trying to obscure the fact that his behavior is suspect, so you point fingers.
Your “honest” appraisal of why he’s gutted that board needs work…really, the best you got is this: “nobody ever said these are lifetime appointments”. Pffft
Re-read the thread, your “questions” were already answered. Own up to your subjectivity like a big boy, Sam-I-Am. Your Perry is showing.
Reply »
Pinkles says:
Does your little madate go for Perry or doesn’t it? Should he follow the rules and or shouldn’t he? Should he tell the truth or shouldn’t he? Why is this so hard for Repubs to grasp? It’s like we’re arguing about DeLay or something ;)
I thought it was a pretty simple question….right now, my kids are doing better with the answers. Even my baby knows that if she makes a rule, she has to follow it even when she doesn’t want to.
Reply »
Dr J says:
Sam, I’ve misrepresented nothing. Beyler and Hurst say that the evidence doesn’t support the finding of arson. You should listen to them.
In your comments here you’ve cherry-picked quotes, provided partial quotes, and quoted as the gospel statements that contradict what the same speaker said under oath. When confronted with the reality that your Dear Leader pulled a Saturday Night Massacre on the FSC, you throw out red herrings.
Are you honest enough to repeat what Beyler said the newly appointed members of the FSC should do to restore it’s integrity?
Reply »
sam says:
Dr J: You misrepresented the conclusions of the experts. You are the one who needs to listen to them. Beyler and Hurst criticized the original investigation and said that their findings did not support arson. However, Beyler and Hurst stated that they themselves could not rule out arson. There is a difference between what they are saying and what you and others think/want them to say.
Beyler was appointed to act like an independent expert. He publishes a report that reads more like advocacy, demands that the ex-commissioners be re-instated, and calls for the commissioners to go on strike until they are.
Are you honest enough to admit that is not how an independent expert behaves?
Reply »
Dr J Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Beyler and Hurst can’t prove a negative, Sam.
They HAVE proven that the state’s case against Willingham left substantial reasonable doubt. End of story.
Reply »
sam says:
Pinkles: Your failure to acknowledge how Dr. J, Martin, and you were rude to me, tells me you are too far gone to even bother with. Also, it is clear you can not distinguish between your opinions and facts.
Reply »
Pinkles says:
Sure I can dearie, here’s another fact: you threw darts first and still don’t have a clue. Admit it: you are defending a creep who gutted a board to avoid being held accountable for his unconscionable, unethical behavior. The Fact is, it might be even worse for him than that.
So, rather than man up, he decided to weasel out instead. Your reliance on your subjectivity does nothing to eke out facts, and you’d rather point fingers. You don’t bother with the truth much, do you?
Rather than gut the commission, your hero should have had the balls to face the music. Fact is, he is responsible for his actions and he should be held accountable.
Bitch about rude opines to someone who gives a damn, honey. Seems you are more concerned about that, than the possibility that your hero could have sent an innocent person to his death. Wow.
Reply »