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 ...
No, there are thousands of experts that will say anything about anything. I can find dozens of experts who will swear a plane did not crash into the Pentagon on 911. Experts are a dime a dozen especially when a political agenda is involved.
I was referring to prosecution. It isn't unlikely for the DA's office to go back many years ago and have the criminalists sift through all available cases looking for one that slipped between the cracks. In that instance any evidence brought to light should be re-examined.
I hold no opinion regarding the Innocence Project.
Nor is the evidence of Mr. Scheck conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. As has been pointed out, no doubt the prosecution could come up with four "expert" witnesses of their own to dispute Mr. Scheck's.
I happen to see a few episodes of the fictionalized version of the Innocence Project on televsion. I believe it is now cancelled. But the point is, I remember in one of the episodes the investigators from that innocence project actually broke the law to prove someone innocent. LOL.
One thing that jumps out of this thread for me today is that not all Freepers are for the death penalty. A fact that must come as a suprise to those over at du.
We will see, won't we?
Has anyone asked? There really is no reason for experts to come forward, when this is really an open and shut case. These few 'experts', who for all I know are paid for shills of the anti-death penalty movement, are not all that compelling.
No and I would not dare do so because I am not in position to investigate and carry through with that statement. I certainly hope you are correct but the sciences used in all phases of life are not fool proof and with the odds I dare say quite a few people have be executed for crimes they did not commit.A lot of law enforcement techniques have changed in my lifetime and I have personally observed things peddled to the law enforcement community that I do not or did not trust and a lot of law enforcement officers could back that up. You will always have human error and do not think for one minute the system is infallible.
Oh somehow I doubt that.....
And yet using DNA evidence and going back to old, unsolved cases and applying new technology to convict is accepted. It seems to me that the State, if it is sure and confident of its case, should not be intimidated by efforts to confirm the verdict. While one's personal motive may be to disprove the verdict, if the case was properly tried and the evidence properly presented, the verdict will be confirmed.
Additionally, prosecutors should not be held as being above the law and without some sort of check on their power. I would submit that we can all think of trials, either on the national level or in our own communities, in which it clearly seemed that a prosecutor was very personally involved in a case and used the state's resources to satisfy what can only be a personal mission against an individual. The already corrupted court system seems uninclined to hold them accountable. But, I am not convinced that they should be unaccountable.
i seriously doubt it. You put a lot more weight on this than most. The state of Texas has no doubt the guy was guilty and will rightfully ignore this.
I clicked through to the article - there's only one issue discussed - the question of crazed glass. Crazed glass alone is not evidence of an incendiary fire - but glass that crazes as a result of cold water sprayed on it from the outside is not the same as glass that crazes as the result of sudden and overwhelming heat. It's the sort of thing that experts can pick at to try to introduce reasonable doubt.
But challenging one item of evidence does not mean that the defendant is innocent. It doesn't even necessarily mean that the evidence is bad, just ambiguous. It can be considered in conjunction with other things.
However, what interests me is that the article says absolutely NOTHING about disproving the existence of pour trails. If the trial expert witness testified that accelerant was poured on the threshold, window ledges, and floors, that is easily shown by distinctive burn marks (which are usually photographed and exhibited to the jury). That would be absolutely conclusive of the use of accelerant (almost always gasoline) and I don't see what if anything the second-guessing experts could have said to contradict that. And I don't see how, if the accelerant was found in multiple places and the fire had multiple POIs, how anybody can reasonably contend that this was anything but a fire of incendiary origin.
But there's a lot of wishful thinking going on over at the Innocence Project.
Not many things. That is why, as a conservative, I can't support the death penalty. This guys may very well have been guilty, though.
Because there are far too many prosecutors interested in only getting a conviction, and not committed to the actual rule of law and honesty with defendants; I am no longer a supporter of the death penalty.
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.