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."

[nmh]

You got that right!

They could video tape a horrendous murder and ole Barry Scheck would deviously work to declare him/her innocent and set free.

[delphirogatio]

And this is predicated on the belief that, even if the defense attorneys don't play by the rules, then surely the prosecutors do. I love the thought that prosecutors are more interested in justice than they are their own petty win/loss record and their social standing in the community. But that is merely a thought and that's a long, long way from fact.

[Stone Mountain]

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

I don't know that about him, but even if his personality is as you describle, I do know he has worked to free people who were wrongly convicted and has gotten lots of innocent people freed.

[nmh]

Details would spoil this "innocent parade".

It's a farce. Their ultimate goal is outlaw capital punishment and incrementally remove punishment of any kind.

[JamesP81]

Last thing the death penalty needs is a wrongful conviction proven 'after the fact'.

I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't already happened.

but the key question was there 'litle doubt he was guilty!'

I hope the phrase you meant to use was 'beyond a reasonable doubt' because if there was 'little doubt' you can't even convict him of a crime, much less execute him.

[VRWCmember]

I'm concerned about the guilty people he is trying to free by discrediting one piece of evidence out of a mountain of evidence.

[Duffboy]

Barry Scheck also said OJ was innocent.

[JamesP81]

It's this simple: no matter how good the science, there will always be situations in which an innocent man was executed. If you want to be consistent, and support the death penalty, then you have to be at peace with the idea that it's OK to kill a few innocents if it allows us to kill the ones that truly deserve it.

Personally, I'm not OK with that. Your mileage may vary.

[uncitizen]

I see an "American Justice" episode on this story in our future.

[JamesP81]

Juries do.

And DAs are trained to make juries see things their way, regardless of evidence. Juries are hardly impartial in these matters anymore. Just because the jury said so doesn't mean anything as related to right and wrong anymore.

[Stone Mountain]

I'm concerned about the guilty people he is trying to free by discrediting one piece of evidence out of a mountain of evidence.

It's not possible to do this. After someone has been convicted, the presumption of innocence changes to guilty. For a conviction to be overturned, there must be strong evidence that either the trial or the evidence presented was seriously flawed. One piece of evidence out of a mountain would not suffice. Do you doubt that Scheck has freed people wrongly convicted of crimes?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I think that show like Commander in Chief on ABC has been cancelled.

[MissEdie]

This reminds me of the case several years ago, in I believe Pennsylvania. Does anyone else remember it- a man was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his sister-in law. He kept proclaiming his innocence, even on the day they executed him. The case predated DNA data, a group like this one kept saying the state had excuted an innocent man, blah blah blah. Anyway the state kept DNA/blood and fluid samples from the crime and had them tested a couple of years ago and lo and behold it linked the man to the crime, proving that he did in deed commit the crimes. Does anyone else remember this? I have a feeling this Texas case is going to end up a lot like that one, reconfirming the excuted person was guilty.

[L98Fiero]

Maybe so but juries aren't the government.

[Stone Mountain]

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

I followed the OJ case on Court TV. I think there was ample evidence to convict OJ. But a lot of the scientific evidence was flawed - there was a question as to whether or not samples had been handled correctly according to police protocol, samples not being processed in a timely manner, etc. The case against OJ was strong, but the cops hurt themselves in the way they handled a lot of the case. In any event, a defense lawyer has the obligation to defend his client to the best of his ability. To do any less would be to commit malpractice.

[uncitizen]

Huh? Never watch either show. Used to watch American Justice but got fed up with the "poor guy put away for life isn't even guilty" premise.

[Stone Mountain]

This reminds me of the case several years ago, in I believe Pennsylvania. Does anyone else remember it- a man was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his sister-in law. He kept proclaiming his innocence, even on the day they executed him. The case predated DNA data, a group like this one kept saying the state had excuted an innocent man, blah blah blah. Anyway the state kept DNA/blood and fluid samples from the crime and had them tested a couple of years ago and lo and behold it linked the man to the crime, proving that he did in deed commit the crimes

There have been quite a few cases where the Innocence project has proved that the person convicted was guilty. That's great. Better that all doubt be removed than allow the chance for an innocent man to be jailed or executed. Surely you don't believe that every single person that has been convicted is actually guilty of the crime - judges, lawyers and juries make mistakes all the time.

[JamesP81]

I followed the OJ case on Court TV. I think there was ample evidence to convict OJ. But a lot of the scientific evidence was flawed - there was a question as to whether or not samples had been handled correctly according to police protocol, samples not being processed in a timely manner, etc. The case against OJ was strong, but the cops hurt themselves in the way they handled a lot of the case. In any event, a defense lawyer has the obligation to defend his client to the best of his ability. To do any less would be to commit malpractice.

All of what you say is true. Personally, I think OJ is guilty as sin. I will have to say, however, that when that glove didn't fit his hand it really did look bad for the DA. If they'd just skipped that part they'd have been better off.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

With the racial makeup of that jury, the da could have had video footage, ala Jack Ruby, of O.J. doing the crime and they would have still found O.J. innocent.

[Labyrinthos]

Our government doesn't make these decisions. Juries do.

True, but not by themselves. The prosecutors, who have a hugh amount of discretion at to which cases to pursue, often choose cases not for their evidentary strength, but for their re-election value (i.e., the Distict Attorney in the "Duke" rape case. Also, judges who are either elected or appointed by elected officials, have their own political agendas, and while they are supposed to act as the evidentary gatekeepers to exclude evidence that is unreliable, they have a long history of allowing junk science to reach the jury.