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 just read the article..why didn't they interview the prosecutors??..there has to be more to the story than what they are reporting..oh wait..this is the msm..never mind..
To tell the truth, I have no loyalty to the death penalty. I can see valid arguments on both sides.
And that would be too bad.
Some people deserve to be executed, no doubt. At the same time, you have to be much more certain about guilt when someone's life is on the line.
Maybe people will stop trusting their intuition and instead look to science to get it right.
Does anyone have a link to more info than just that presented in this article? On the face of it, this man was convicted and executed for being home with children when a fire broke out. I can't believe that is all the evidence of a murder.
"Sorry, but I don't trust our government when it comes to these decisions."
Our government doesn't make these decisions. Juries do.
At Willingham's trial, the fire marshall testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. He further testified that these areas are typically set on fire to impede firefighters in their rescue attempts.
Other testimony showed that Willingham deliberately set the fire to kill his children. Neighbors testified that Willingham came outdoors as the house began smoldering, before flames were visible from the outside. He first pushed his car away to protect it from being burned, then "crouched down" in the front yard. Despite their pleas, Willingham refused to go into the house to attempt to rescue the children, they said. A firefighter testified that Willingham showed no grief over his children's deaths, but became upset upon discovering that his dart board was burned. A neighbor also testified that on the day after the fire, Willingham and his wife were going through the debris while playing music and laughing.
Probably because there was enough other information to fry him.
The report calls on the criminal justice system to require arson investigators to have backgrounds in the science of fire and that criminal defense lawyers be afforded money to hire independent fire investigators. It also urges that participants in the justice system, particularly prosecutors, who decide whether to bring charges, be educated about scientific advances in fire investigation.
"There is no crime other than homicide by arson for which a person can be sent to Death Row based on the unsupported opinion of someone who received all of his training `on the job,'" the report states.
At the news conference Tuesday, Lentini said the analysis of the testimony by fire investigators in the Willis and Willingham cases shows that "over and over and over again, they repeated the mythology. ... These guys didn't know what they were talking about."
They also mention another case where the evidence was the same and the defendent released because arson experts concluded there was no evidence that the fire was intentionally set.
The report assessing the two cases notes that even though the interpretations of the physical evidence in the Willis case were the same as in the Willingham case, authorities in Texas have declined to say that Willingham was wrongly convicted and executed. The report said the "disparity of the outcomes in these two cases warrants a closer inspection."
In the letter to the commission, Scheck said, "Willis cannot be found `actually innocent' and Willingham executed based on the same scientific evidence."
If the government is going to impose a death penalty, they better be pretty damn sure that they are executing a guilty man. And using one expert that works for the state (who turned out to be incompetent) as the sole arson expert (no funds were provided to the defendent so he could hire his own expert) doesn't qualify as far as I'm concerned.
All it ended up doing was even further solidifying his guilt.
This is old news. The left has been pushing this as the key case of an innocent man being executed. Too bad they don't have any evidence to support it other than a couple of experts who weren't at the trial. One interesting fact, he saved his pickup truck before he tried to 'save' his kids.
The title is pure propaganda. Just because one piece of evidence is in question, does not mean there wasn't much more evidence against the guy or that the guy was innocent.
Henry Lee=zero credibility
F Lee Bailey=zero credibility
Their viewpoint towards the death penalty may not be objective, but the process by which they've either dug up or discredited evidence has been objective enough to have racked up scores of exonerations. You may not buy off on their politics, but it sounds like their opinion of evidence has to have enough credibility to pay attention and give it an evaluation.
:-) You ain't foolin' me.
Thank you for your strong and unqualified (and I mean that in BOTH senses of the term!) support for the 5th Amendment. (Look it up!)
If you ever fall into the Just Us machinery, may you be accorded the same level of prosecutorial competence.
Gee. No bias here. /s
You seem to have brought out some of FR's long time liberals. Do you have a link to the original account of the trial? That would help.
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.