... especially if David Grann has anything to say about it. Grann, in his
explosive New Yorker piece on the Cameron Todd Willingham case, cherry picks his data to fuel an already-unstable political mixture. And lord does he play his hand like Johnny Chan. Hell, had I not already read ample documents on the 1991 Cameron Todd Willingham arson/
(
Read more... )
Comments 2
But then, so what? Being angry or using obscene language doesn't prove guilt. In fact, if innocent, then anger and obscene language seem understandable, especially while on the execution gurney.
However, stickboy's point it valid. Grann was remiss for not providing all of Willingham's final statement.
Reply
It surely doesn't prove guilt, of course not. I wouldn't even suggest that it did. It does, however, add to Grann's omissions to paint an altogether different picture of Willingham than that which the author obviously intended.
I still have doubts about his guilt as well. What I wish writers like Grann would do is point readers to the same freely-available source material I read and let them decide for themselves, instead of presuming to filter it on our behalf, snidely culling out the chaff that doesn't fit the picture of the accused that he wants us to see. We can't fail to point at that and call it what it is: the same kind of biased public opinion manipulation that Grann thinks got Willingham killed in the first place.
Reply
Leave a comment