Posted on 05/03/2006 8:33:25 AM PDT by Crackingham
Four of the nation's top arson experts have concluded that the state of Texas executed a man in 2004 based on scientifically invalid evidence, and on Tuesday they called for an official reinvestigation of the case. In their report, the experts, assembled by the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations, concluded that the conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the arson-murders of his three daughters were based on interpretations by fire investigators that have been scientifically disproved.
"The whole system has broken down," Barry Scheck, co-founder and director of the Innocence Project, said at a news conference at the state Capitol in Austin. "It's time to find out whether Texas has executed an innocent man."
The experts were asked to perform an independent review of the evidence after an investigation by the Tribune that showed Willingham had been found guilty on arson theories that have been repudiated by scientific advances. In fact, many of the theories were simply lore that had been handed down by generations of arson investigators who relied on what they were told.
The report's conclusions match the findings of the Tribune, published in December 2004. The newspaper began investigating the Willingham case following an October 2004 series, "Forensics Under the Microscope," which examined the use of forensics in the courtroom, including the continued use of disproved arson theories to obtain convictions.
In strong language harshly critical of the investigation of the 1991 fire in Corsicana, southeast of Dallas, the report said evidence examined in the Willingham case and "relied upon by fire investigators" was the type of evidence "routinely created by accidental fires."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I only checked back a few weeks in his posting history, but during that time he never made any comments on any of the threads that the started.
Have these four "experts" proved this man not guilty? No. They've merely cast retroactive doubt on a case that was decided with almost absolute certainty.
It's disingenuous because people like Scheck will say "See? The guy MIGHT have been innocent (though there was no evidence of it at the time), therefore we should never execute anyone because someone might perfect a methodology IN THE FUTURE that will cast doubt on a particular case." It's a grasping-at-straws which is all the death penalty opponents have left.
Remember the big case last year with some guy in Virginia whom Mark Warner was going to use to propel him to national prominence?
Only problem was the DNA proved that the perp who was executed was the perp.
Three lifers escaped a prison in Texas five years ago and killed an Irving police officer on Christmas night.
Had they been executed, that officer would be alive today.
Had they been executed, that officer would be alive today.
Shhhhhhhhhhh........that's the dirty little secret that death penalty opponents kinda forget to point out.
Here in Arkansas we had a perp that murdered a little girl as she clutched her Bible. The perp sentenced to the humane sentence of life, escaped and killed three more people.
Keeping a murderer in prison for life means that he has absolutely every reason to kill again if he gets the chance.
I wonder if Melissa Northrup or Colleen Reed would agree with you. Both of these young ladies would be alive today if the death sentence against Kenneth McDuff had been carried out. Instead it was changed to life, which later qualified him for parole and he went on to murder these two young ladies, and is suspected of murdering others.
The record shows that life sentences do not keep criminals in jail for life, and violent criminals more often than not participate in further violence, often on a greater scale.
The death penalty drastically reduces recidivism every time it is carried out.
Posting Bot....you are so right. Dozens of articles posted, but no comments. Very unusual.
Right. The anti death penalty forces are looking for a big win to propel them forward. One or two wrongly executed people is their holy grail. Obviously this gives them powerful (in their mind at least) ammunition in their crusade. I'm pro death penalty, a few mistakes won't change me. Those mistakes are usually no account scum anyways. They should not have been executed but even their momma won't miss them
THANK you for that very useful info. The MF'ers at the Trib are getting a letter from one pissed polock (who is actually anti-death penalty but would rather see unbiased stories for people to decide for themselves).
I am really suprised that the mods let this (guy)? stay in the forum.
I don't know anything about arson. What if we had four different investigators? Would they come to the same conclusions as these four?
We have to work with what we have at the time. The problem with the anti-death penalty people is that they want absolute certainty. And there is no way to prove anything with absolute certainty without a confession from the perp.
We will disagree on this. Project Innocence is dedicated to ending the death penalty. If they succeed there, their next project will be to prove that no one deserves life without parole.
These liberals do not believe in punishment of the guilty. They want rehabilitation, and a chance for life on the outside for EVERYBODY.
If those guys were found guilty and deserving of the death penalty, it should have been carried out.
Except that you and Barry Scheck would be digging into their case to try to prove them deserving of a lesser penalty because you both have a problem with the death penalty.
Instead, they were given life (I understand because they testified against each other and this was the plea deal). And a father of four is dead because of it.
Life is not life when we have governors like George Ryan running around, pardoning everybody he can pardon because he's distracting Illinois citizens from his crimes.
16,000 murders last year and this guy gets the front page. Go figure.
It has from initiation been a principle of American justice that no legal system is perfect; that innocent people will be convicted and the guilty go free; and that in the interests of freedom it is better to bias the system towards the defendant, with the attendant risk that guilty people will go free, than to bias it towards the State and increase the risk that innocent people will be found guilty.
The cost is counted. It simply been decided that it's worth the cost.
Barry Scheck has doubts, but the prosecutor and jurors have no doubts.
It's tough to summon up a tear for a guy who stood outside while his children burned to death.
silentknight told me in post #50 here that it's been proved to have happened several times.
"Prosecutors point to other evidence against Willingham presented at his trial: a jailhouse informant who claimed Willingham confessed to him and stands by his testimony, and witnesses who said Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children.
Kathy Walt, a spokeswoman for the Texas governor, said Perry carefully considered "all of the factors" in Willingham's case before deciding against a stay.
Navarro County Judge John Jackson, who as the first assistant district attorney prosecuted Willingham, said that while the experts' review raises some "issues," he has no doubt that Willingham was guilty.
"Does it give me pause? No it does not. I have no reservations."
But some of the jurors who convicted Willingham and sentenced him to death were troubled when shown or told of the new case review.
"Did anybody know about this prior to his execution?" Dorinda Brokofsky asked. "Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent."
The operative word is "maybe".
I don't want an innocent person to be executed. All I know about this case is what I've read today. I know there were more "experts" involved in this case than the four fire investigators. At some point, after years of investigation and appeals, the ultimate decision has to be made based on all evidence and expert opinion. The Texas judges and the Texas Governor did that.
O.J. was lucky that there was no one from a cold-weather state on that jury. Anyone who's worn leather gloves and gotten them wet knows that they shrink and get stiff when they dry. And given that they were a custom set of gloves, the fit would have been close before they got wet. After they'd been soaked in blood and allowed to dry, there's no way to expect them to fit.
Be honest now: if there was a case in which there was indisputable evidence that an American had been wrongfully executed, don't you think that every single of us would know his name by heart?
The New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN would all be mentioning his name ten thousand times each every single time a new death penalty case came up.
And there is no way to prove anything with absolute certainty without a confession from the perp.
You're probably aware that this isn't even sufficient - there are many many cases where defendents were coerced, or even without coersion, gave false confessions.
We will disagree on this. Project Innocence is dedicated to ending the death penalty. If they succeed there, their next project will be to prove that no one deserves life without parole.
Yup, we disagree on this. If I believed that that was the goal of TIP, I would not support them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.