Report: Inmate wrongly executed

Chicago Tribune ^ | 5/3/6 | Maurice Possley

[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."

[Always Right]

Actually, not for me. What is the problem with Scheck?

Well would you trust someone who can proclaim OJ's innocence with a straight face?

[Syncro]

Har, good luck.

This isn't a person, it is an internet posting bot.

[COEXERJ145]

Yeah, I noticed that. Seems we have a lot of liberals coming out of the closet lately.

I don't have an account of the trial on hand or anything. I'd have to go search for it but I'm sure it is out there.

Given the number of appeals these people get, I have little doubt he was guilty.

[facedown]

What is the problem with Scheck?

The OJ trial ring a bell?

[BulletBobCo]

Of the 40+ post, it has only responded in the single digits.

[Always Right]

Strong, silent type, huh? :-) You ain't foolin' me.

Kind of a strange poster. Justs post article after article with no comments.

[jpl]

Before seeking the death penalty you need unbiased testimony and that is hard to find.

Nobody in this country, with extremely rare exceptions such as Timothy McVeigh, ever gets put to death without an exhaustive appeal and review process that typically lasts around 25 years.

The idea that the death row system is flawed is nothing but a bunch of liberal BS. If there's any reasonable question whatsoever about the person's guilt, he doesn't get executed.

[claudiustg]

He's dead, Jim.

[BulletBobCo]

I'm responding.

[silentknight]

Quote "At some point it's going to happen; it'll be proved that a man was executed on the basis of testimony or evidence that will be found to have been false. It may even happen that it will be proved that an innocent man was executed. And that's when there will be a serious push in America to abolish the death penalty."

Ummm that has already happened in several states. Nothing has changed.

[VRWCmember]

This is a serious indictment of the Texas justice system - you should need damn near incontrovertible evidence to put someone to death in this country. From the article:

YOU DO!

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Why do you let this posting bot stay?

[Stone Mountain]

Well would you trust someone who can proclaim OJ's innocence with a straight face?

Did he say OJ was innocent or did he say that the scientific evidence alone wasn't sufficient to warrant a conviction? Big difference. Since the OJ trial Scheck started a group called the Innocence Project and has helped to free people who have been wrongly convicted based on mistaken eyewitness identification. Men convicted wrongly of rape and other serious crimes who have served years - well over a decade in some cases - have been freed based on DNA evidence that has proved their innocence. Even if you believe that Scheck was completely wrong during the OJ trial, I think he's more than made up for it with the group he has started. These are innocent people that would be rotting away in jail were it not for the Innocence Project - you can bet that the government wasn't going to review any of those cases.

As far as the OJ trial, I don't blame Scheck or even Johnny Cochran for the verdict. I blame the jury. I followed basically the entire case on Court TV and I believe there was sufficient evidence to convict. Cochran was doing his job by putting forth the best defense he was capable of. The jury, as far as I was concerned, made the wrong decision. But given that, I didn't see that Scheck lied or gave misleading testimony in any part of the trial he was involved in.

[VRWCmember]

Actually, not for me. What is the problem with Scheck?

Scheck is an Amnesty International type who never met a sociopath he didn't love.

[traditional1]

Does anyone have a link to more info than just that presented in this article?

Try here:

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htm

[Daus]

by the Innocence Project

Ahh yes, these folks..

[ishabibble]

The headline of this article is a crime in itself.
Talk about "yellow journalism".

As for Barry Scheck, his Innocence Project has also released a man in WI after 18 yrs. in prison. That man promptly lured, raped, tortured, stabbed, and burnt a young female photographer, using his 12 yr. old nephew as an accomplice.
Also, after the execution of a murderer in VA, the governor ordered that the entire case be redone, as he was hoping to knock down the death penalty, too. The DNA evidence clearly proved that the man executed for raping and murdering his sister-in-law actually did commit the crimes.

The reporting of this story stinks to high heaven, and Barry Scheck has bigger motives than the innocence of some death row inmate, but as one who remembers the case of Scott Hornoff so clearly, I am in favor of a do over in some cases. Hornoff was a RI police officer who spent six yrs. in prison for murder. One day, out of the blue, the real killer walked into a police station and confessed. Truly one of the most bizarre things I have ever witnessed, and proof positive that LEO can sometimes be so wrong that it destroys people and faith in the system. One cop in the Hornoff case told a friend that "they" all knew Hornoff didn't do it, but, geez that guy was such an a@@*&^%...

[Always Right]

Did he say OJ was innocent or did he say that the scientific evidence alone wasn't sufficient to warrant a conviction? Big difference.

Except there was enough scientific evidence in the OJ case to convict normal 10 men.

[Stone Mountain]

In their report, the experts, assembled by the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations,

Gee. No bias here. /s

The Innocence Project IS a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations. How is that biased?

[JamesP81]

I put on my asbestos this morning, so feel free to flame away.

I've said it before: this is why I'm against the death penalty. Not that I'm against the principle as such, it's that government is incapable of doing it right like so many other things.

If you chuck a man into a cell and later find out that you were wrong, you can at least clear his record, issue public apologies, make resitution, etc. Which is all well and good. But if you strap him to a table and kill him, well, if you were wrong you can't really take that back.

Therefore, the death penalty is something that can only be justly administered if the entitity administering it can get it right every single time. The government can't. The government is too incompetent and too venal, petty, political, and cruel to be trusted with the power of life and death over the citizens of these United States.