Alabama executes james Osgood for 2010 Rape and Murder of Tracy Lynn Wilemon

ATMORE, Ala. – The state of Alabama executed James Osgood, 55, Thursday evening by lethal injection at the William C. Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore. Osgood was convicted of the brutal rape and murder of Tracy Lynn Wilemon in October 2010. He was pronounced dead at 6:35 p.m. local time,marking the second execution in Alabama this year and the tenth in the United States.

Witnesses reported that Osgood cried before losing consciousness. His last words were directed to Wilemon: “I apologize.”

The case, described by prosecutors as a “twisted fantasy,” involved Osgood and his then-girlfriend, Tonya Vandyke, attacking Wilemon, who was Vandyke’s cousin. Osgood confessed to the crime and, in the years leading up to his execution, waived all appeals, fired his lawyer, and expressed his desire to face the death penalty.

In a 2018 resentencing hearing, Osgood stated, “I have always firmly believed in the principle of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for life. I screwed it up. I deserve what they gave me.”

According to court documents, on Oct. 13, 2010, Osgood and Vandyke attacked Wilemon in a room. They raped her and forced her to engage in sexual acts with them. Osgood then cut her throat multiple times before stabbing her in the back.

Osgood described the final moments of the victim during his interview with the Chilton County Sheriff’s Department: “I remember seeing fear in his eyes and seeing her tremble. I know there were many cuts, but it wasn’t a violent crime. There was no anger. I was afraid. I wasn’t dying, so I continued cutting him the throat and the neck,” he said. He also stated that he apologized to Wilemon as he attacked her, telling her “it was nothing against her.”

Chief Deputy District Attorney C.J. Robinson described the crime as a “twisted fantasy” and said that Osgood “enjoyed” the act. During the trial, Robinson said the details of the case were so “disturbing” that “what stirred your stomach, excited it.”

Wilemon, 44, was a mother who was described by relatives as a brave and hardworking woman who was rebuilding her life after a divorce. Her stepsister, Trish Jackson, told USA Today that wilemon worked in a nursing home and was saving money to visit her daughter in Lake Havasu, Arizona.”He was recovering … he restructured his life wholly, he started from scratch,” jackson said.

Wilemon’s relationship with her cousin, Tonya Vandyke, had been close during their childhood, growing up together in Southern California, sharing activities such as riding horses and organizing family gatherings. jackson lamented that her stepsister would miss important milestones, like the birth of her grandchildren.”He had a lot of life to live. he was very dear and would have been an incredible grandmother,” he said.

Osgood’s background was marked by trauma. According to court records, he never met his biological mother, who was a sex worker and was murdered when he was a baby. He was subjected to malnutrition, sexual abuse, and neglect while in foster care.At 14, Osgood fathered a child with a 24-year-old woman. He was also admitted to a psychiatric hospital and diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.

His sister testified about the abuse they both suffered during the trial, moving Osgood to tears, the only visible emotion he displayed throughout the judicial process.

Jackson and Wilemon’s stepmother traveled from Southern California to witness Osgood’s execution. Both women stated that they had forgiven Osgood and hoped that he found God before his death. They also believed that the sentence was fair.

“This deserves this,” said Jackson, who acknowledged having “doubted” about the death penalty, but finaly “concluded” that was “the will of God.”

Jackson stated that due “process” had been carried out and that the execution was the result of a “judicial system” that had fulfilled his work.

While Osgood was sentenced to death, Tonya Vandyke is serving a life sentence in federal prison.

Counterargument:
Some argue that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. constitution. They cite the risk of executing innocent individuals, the disproportionate application of the death penalty based on race and socioeconomic status, and the lack of conclusive evidence that it deters crime. Moreover, some opponents argue that life imprisonment without parole is a sufficient punishment and that the death penalty is morally wrong, nonetheless of the crime committed.

However, proponents maintain that the death penalty provides justice for victims and their families, deters heinous crimes, and is a just punishment for those who commit particularly egregious acts, such as the rape and murder committed by Osgood. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty when applied with due process and safeguards against arbitrary application.

FAQ

Q: How many executions have been carried out in the United States this year?
A: As of today, there have been 10 executions in the United States this year.

Q: What was James Osgood convicted of?
A: James Osgood was convicted of the rape and murder of Tracy Lynn wilemon in 2010.

Q: Where did the execution take place?
A: The execution took place at the William C.Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, Alabama.

Q: What was Tonya Vandyke’s role in the crime, and what was her sentence?
A: Tonya vandyke was Osgood’s accomplice in the crime, and she is serving a life sentence in federal prison.

Q: What were James Osgood’s last words?
A: James Osgood’s last words directed to Tracy Wilemon were: “I apologize.”

– How might Osgood’s childhood trauma have contributed to his decision to waive appeals and accept his death sentence?

Did Colossal Biosciences Really Bring Back the Dire Wolf? Experts Weigh In on “De-Extinction” Claims

DALLAS — Just weeks ago, headlines blared the triumphant return of the dire wolf, a creature extinct for 12,000 years. Dallas-based genetics startup Colossal Biosciences announced it had successfully “resurrected” the iconic predator,calling it “the world’s first de-extinction” and “a revolutionary milestone of scientific progress.” Conservationists lauded the achievement,with American Humane Society CEO Robin R. Ganzert gushing on Colossal’s website that it could make “extinction events a thing of the past.”

But as quickly as the fanfare rose, a wave of skepticism followed. Experts in the genetics community are now questioning weather the three animals produced in Colossal’s laboratory and housed at an undisclosed preserve are,in fact,dire wolves,or simply modern grey wolves with minor genetic alterations.”The three produced gray wolves with fifteen gene edits making them genetically a smidge more like dire wolves are not a de-extinction event,” argues Paul S. Knoepfler, a cell biology and human anatomy expert at UC Davis medical school.Knoepfler went further in a blog post, calling Colossal’s claims “colossal baloney” and warning that “this kind of hype is toxic and harmful to science including public trust.”

Colossal Biosciences, co-founded by software entrepreneur ben Lamm and Harvard and MIT geneticist George Church, dismisses the criticism as a “distraction” from its scientific goals and achievements. “Everybody just wanted to argue what to call these things,” Lamm said. “No one got deep into the science of how we created new models for ancient DNA extraction.”

The company’s initial announcement was accompanied by a media blitz.Time magazine featured one of the pups, named Remus, on the cover of its May 12 issue under the headline “This is Remus. He’s a dire wolf. The first to exist in over 10,000 years.” Good Morning America also aired a segment, introducing the story as “‘Jurassic Park’ meets ‘Game of Thrones’!”

That kind of presentation risks undermining careful scientific assessment. “A website is marketing,” Lamm acknowledged. “It’s not a scientific paper. It hasn’t gone through peer review.”

Colossal’s efforts involved extracting DNA from a fossilized dire wolf tooth found in Idaho and an ear bone from Ohio.Those samples were then used to edit 14 genes in the genome of a gray wolf. The resulting embryos were implanted in dogs as surrogate mothers, resulting in the birth of three pups.The company has other “de-extinction” projects in the works, including the woolly mammoth, the dodo bird, and the Tasmanian tiger. Colossal says its goals include restoring these species to their ancient ecosystems to enhance biodiversity.

However, the choice of the dire wolf as the first “de-extinction” success has raised eyebrows, especially given its popularity in pop culture. George R.R.Martin, author of the Game of Thrones series, is an investor and advisor to Colossal, and is credited with “review and editing” on a company paper describing the project. One of Colossal’s “dire wolves” is named Khaleesi, a game of Thrones character, while the other two are named Romulus and Remus, after the founders of Rome who were raised by a she-wolf.

While the Colossal animals are depicted as snowy white in promotional materials, fossil evidence suggests that real dire wolves had dark fur and were about the size of large dogs or wolves, not the size of lions or horses as portrayed in Game of Thrones.

The question remains: what has Colossal Biosciences actually accomplished? While the company has undoubtedly advanced the science of genetic recovery and editing, some experts beleive its claims are overstated.

“The dire wolf genome likely differs from that of the gray wolf in millions or tens of millions of ways,” Knoepfler said. “Editing 14 genes is engaging, but it’s not a reconstruction or de-extinction. It’s not even close.”

One compelling counterargument comes from the field of conservation genetics. Some scientists contend that even if the “de-extincted” animals aren’t perfect replicas, they could still contribute positively to ecosystems. For example, a “proxy” for the woolly mammoth, even if not genetically identical, could potentially help restore grasslands in Siberia by trampling brush and distributing seeds, thus sequestering carbon and combating climate change.

Colossal aims to market biodiversity credits to other companies, similar to how Tesla sells environmental regulatory credits to automakers lacking a zero-emission footprint.

The debate underscores the complex ethical and ecological considerations surrounding “de-extinction.” Biologist Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief science officer, raised many of these issues in her 2015 book, “How to Clone a Mammoth.” concerns include the potential revival of dangerous pathogens, the lack of suitable habitats for resurrected species, and the possibility that de-extinction projects could undermine existing conservation efforts.

Former Interior Secretary Doug Burgum even cited Colossal’s dire wolf project in a tweet, advocating that we “fundamentally change how we think about species conservation… The only thing we’d like to see go extinct is the need for an endangered species list to exist.”

And Colossal asserts that what it’s done is close enough to meet the goal of enhancing biodiversity. but how a restored species could fit into an ecosystem or habitat that has little or nothing in common with the world it once inhabited is an open question.

The “dire wolf affair” serves as a cautionary tale about the influence of marketing on scientific progress. “The very credulous way in which the media was essentially acting as an effective PR arm for Colossal was really shocking to me,” said Jacquelyn Gill, a paleoecologist at the University of Maine.

FAQ: Dire Wolves and De-Extinction

What is “de-extinction?” De-extinction refers to the process of reviving extinct species, typically through genetic engineering.
Is Colossal Biosciences’ dire wolf truly a dire wolf? Many experts dispute this, arguing that the animals are genetically modified gray wolves, not true revivals of the extinct species. What are the potential benefits of “de-extinction?” Proponents argue that it could restore damaged ecosystems, enhance biodiversity, and advance genetic research.
What are the ethical concerns surrounding “de-extinction?” Concerns include the potential for unforeseen ecological consequences, the welfare of resurrected animals, and the distraction from existing conservation efforts.
* How much is Colossal Biosciences worth? After its latest round of venture funding, Colossal’s private market value was about $10.2 billion.