Texas may have executed an innocent man

[Plekhanov]

Cameron Todd Willingham case: Expert says fire for which father was executed was not arson
Texas panel reviewing execution of father for setting deadly blaze

In a withering critique, a nationally known fire scientist has told a state commission on forensics that Texas fire investigators had no basis to rule a deadly house fire was an arson -- a finding that led to the murder conviction and execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.

The finding comes in the first state-sanctioned review of an execution in Texas, home to the country's busiest death chamber. If the commission reaches the same conclusion, it could lead to the first-ever declaration by an official state body that an inmate was wrongly executed.

Indeed, the report concludes there was no evidence to determine that the December 1991 fire was even set, and it leaves open the possibility the blaze that killed three children was an accident and there was no crime at all -- the same findings found in a Chicago Tribune investigation of the case published in December 2004.

Willingham, the father of those children, was executed in February 2004. He protested his innocence to the end.

The Tribune obtained a copy of the review by Craig Beyler, of Hughes Associates Inc., which was conducted for the Texas Forensic Science Commission, created to investigate allegations of forensic error and misconduct. The re-examination of the Willingham case comes as many forensic disciplines face scrutiny for playing a role in wrongful convictions that have been exposed by DNA and other scientific advances.

Among Beyler's key findings: that investigators failed to examine all of the electrical outlets and appliances in the Willinghams' house in the small Texas town of Corsicana, did not consider other potential causes for the fire, came to conclusions that contradicted witnesses at the scene, and wrongly concluded Willingham's injuries could not have been caused as he said they were.

The state fire marshal on the case, Beyler concluded in his report, had "limited understanding" of fire science. The fire marshal "seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created," he wrote.

The marshal's findings, he added, "are nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation."

Over the past five years, the Willingham case has been reviewed by nine of the nation's top fire scientists -- first for the Tribune, then for the Innocence Project, and now for the commission. All concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson.

The only other evidence of significance against Willingham was another inmate who testified that Willingham had confessed to him. Jailhouse snitches are viewed with skepticism in the justice system, so much so that some jurisdictions have restrictions against their use.

Samuel Bassett, an attorney who is the chairman of the commission, said the panel will seek a response from the state fire marshal and then write its own report.

Contacted Monday, one of Willingham's cousins said she was pleased with the report but was skeptical that state officials would acknowledge Willingham's innocence.

"They are definitely going to have to respond to it," said Pat Cox. "But it's difficult for me to believe that the State of Texas or the governor will take responsibility and admit they did in fact wrongfully execute Todd. They'll dance around it."

and he wasn't even black.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Cant say I am shocked. This is texas. 439 executions since 1976. Second is virginia at 94. Given that the TX justice system makes former eastern block countries look good... yeah...

[irishmick79]

Cant say I am shocked. This is texas. 439 executions since 1976. Second is virginia at 94. Given that the TX justice system makes former eastern block countries look good... yeah...

No kidding. Somebody saying they're shocked by Texas botching an execution is like saying you're shocked by the moral depravity of stardestroyer.net. If you're really shocked, you just haven't been paying attention.

[Stofsk]

There's moral depravity here? Do you know what that means?

[TheFeniX]

Well, we are talking about a state that saw fit to execute a retarded man.

[irishmick79]

There's moral depravity here? Do you know what that means?

Hide the women and children?

[The Spartan]

Honestly, I'd be shocked if we hadn't executed someone who was innocent. It's bound to happen sooner or later in even the most effective system and we haven't been looking for the most effective system from a standpoint of justice we've put in an express lane.

[General Zod]

Honestly, I'd be shocked if we hadn't executed someone who was innocent. It's bound to happen sooner or later in even the most effective system and we haven't been looking for the most effective system from a standpoint of justice we've put in an express lane.

Given the Texan hardon for executions I'd be surprised if there weren't more innocent people who had been executed in that particular state.

[Mr Bean]

Honestly, I'd be shocked if we hadn't executed someone who was innocent. It's bound to happen sooner or later in even the most effective system and we haven't been looking for the most effective system from a standpoint of justice we've put in an express lane.

Does not the express lane only cover people who kill others before a large crowd/on film? IE where the only defense that can be mounted is insanity because to many people were there to see it happen?

[Rahvin]

Does not the express lane only cover people who kill others before a large crowd/on film? IE where the only defense that can be mounted is insanity because to many people were there to see it happen?

From what I recall, the rule is three or more witnesses; hardly a "large crowd." And eyewitness testimony is the weakest form, since it's so prone to error. If someone who vaguely looks like you commits a murder that was witnessed by three or more people, you could be in trouble - not only do juries love eyewitnesses in spite of their unreliability, you'll get the "express lane" to the death chamber on top of it.

[The Spartan]

I'm not actually sure of the details but I was using that particular bit somewhat facetiously.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well...

One argument oft-relied on to support the death penalty is that it's not been proved that there's been a wrongful execution since the 1920s; an 80 year record without one was a strong argument that we were applying it justly. If this is proved that he was indeed wrongly executed, however, I fear that argument goes out the window.

The problem is less with the death penalty than the jury system, however, which means we take mouth-breathing retards off the street and when they see a so-called "expert" like that fire marshal tell them the evidence incontrovertibly proves the guy did it, they vote to kill him. We need more to eliminate trial by jury and replace it with inquiries based on the establishment of fact; I would go so far as to completely eliminate civilian participation and create entirely a court system made up based entirely on trial by panels of professional and highly trained jurors, their training making them an even mix of forensic scientists and lawyers.

We furthermore need to divorce evidence gathering from the prosecutor's office. The actual prosecution should be a separate organization of attorneys general with the gathering of evidence being done by a Forensic Departments separate from both the police and the offices of attorneys general; the Forensic Departments would present the evidence to the professional trained jurors and then the attorneys general prosecuting the case and the defence attorneys could throw their own interpretations and observations onto the evidence provided.

I'll also say that if this article is correct and he was, indeed, falsely executed, that though the death penalty might be sustainable in a system such as that which I describe above; it is not sustainable in the current incompetent and useless jury system, and therefore as long as that system remains and there have, indeed, been people falsely executed by it in the modern era, the death penalty must be with some reluctance abolished.

I can't imagine accepting a jury trial for any kind of crime under the sun, personally--I'd take a demand for trial by judge straight to the supreme court if I had to rather than accept one, if the request for a trial by judge was refused to me.

[Plekhanov]

No kidding. Somebody saying they're shocked by Texas botching an execution is like saying you're shocked by the moral depravity of stardestroyer.net. If you're really shocked, you just haven't been paying attention.

The significance of this is that it sounds as though there could be some kind of official acknowledgement that an innocent man was executed.

I don't think anyone but the most wilfully blind pro death penalty types can seriously claim that the death penalty has been applied equitably and that no innocent people have been executed within living memory in the USA. The significance here is that even the state may acknowledge this.

[[R_H]]

The problem is less with the death penalty than the jury system, however, which means we take mouth-breathing retards off the street and when they see a so-called "expert" like that fire marshal tell them the evidence incontrovertibly proves the guy did it, they vote to kill him. We need more to eliminate trial by jury and replace it with inquiries based on the establishment of fact; I would go so far as to completely eliminate civilian participation and create entirely a court system made up based entirely on trial by panels of professional and highly trained jurors, their training making them an even mix of forensic scientists and lawyers.

We furthermore need to divorce evidence gathering from the prosecutor's office. The actual prosecution should be a separate organization of attorneys general with the gathering of evidence being done by a Forensic Departments separate from both the police and the offices of attorneys general; the Forensic Departments would present the evidence to the professional trained jurors and then the attorneys general prosecuting the case and the defence attorneys could throw their own interpretations and observations onto the evidence provided.

I'll also say that if this article is correct and he was, indeed, falsely executed, that though the death penalty might be sustainable in a system such as that which I describe above; it is not sustainable in the current incompetent and useless jury system, and therefore as long as that system remains and there have, indeed, been people falsely executed by it in the modern era, the death penalty must be with some reluctance abolished.

I can't imagine accepting a jury trial for any kind of crime under the sun, personally--I'd take a demand for trial by judge straight to the supreme court if I had to rather than accept one, if the request for a trial by judge was refused to me.

The glaringly obvious problem, IMO, with your idea is the cost and time involved. What about using (parts of) your proposed system in high profile cases (celebrities etc.) or when the defendant faces the death penalty/life without parole?

[KroLazuxy_87]

The problem is less with the death penalty than the jury system,
[More words here]

The glaringly obvious problem, IMO, with your idea is the cost and time involved. What about using (parts of) your proposed system in high profile cases (celebrities etc.) or when the defendant faces the death penalty/life without parole?

Everyone is to be equal before the law though. A defendant has the right to a trial by jury and can choose to have the case heard by just a judge. If you're going to use this system at all, you have to be prepared to use it for everyone.

Also, the law says a Jury of your Peers. Understandably, changing the jury system means changing that, but I think there's something comforting about knowing that the jury is made up of normal people that are screened for previous prejudices.

Creating a staff of professional jurors, even if originally unbiased, will foster prejudice in the jurors. After sentencing say, a dozen drug dealers, the thirteenth defendant charged with distributing illegal drugs, may start looking like the last twelve. Even if the guy was just in the wrong place and the wrong time.
People charge with pedophilia, a crime notoriously hated by everyone, are unlikely to see any more of a fair trial when the jury has in the past sat through trials dealing with pedophilia.

[Netko]

You're ignoring professional ethics and their enforcement. A trained juror (be it a professional juror or a associate judge like in some other countries) has the training to be impartial, and if it is shown (by the appeals process) that he/they let prejudices guide their judgement (or if their judgments get consistently overturned on appeal) sanctions (by the bar/professional jurist association/other relevant entity) can be imposed - something that is explicitly prohibited for peer juries, even if their judgement was based purely on prejudices (for an US example, see the need to federalise some hate crimes to be able to hold trials where the racism of the jury will not automatically acquit a white defendant).

[Aratech]

Also, the law says a Jury of your Peers. Understandably, changing the jury system means changing that, but I think there's something comforting about knowing that the jury is made up of normal people that are screened for previous prejudices.

Oh please. Let me tell you my friend, we've been learning the fine art of jury manipulation at my school. Rule number one for both sides, prosecution and defense: get rid of the smart and logical individuals on the jury. You want them as stupid, ignorant, and emotionally unhinged as you can possibly get them. That way they're more likely to gloss over bits of evidence that don't fit the case.

The best example of this is the case of an Arizona man we just learned about, sentenced originally in 2001 and who is appealing his case. He was accused of brutally murdering a 60 year old woman by stabbing her sixteen times in the head. The state had no eyewitnesses, no motive, not even a murder weapon, or any blood. The only physical evidence they had was two fingerprints, that could not be dated, on the outside of the victim's door.

Did I happen to mention this man was her neighbor?

What they did have, was a bunch of gruesome photographs of what the murder looked like, which were passed around to the jurors, some of which became ill upon seeing them. These jurors, whom I suspect not one of which had an IQ above room temperature, not only found him guilty, they sentenced him to death. His first appeal was shot down in flames as well.

So I will state that whatever 'comfort' there is in a jury of ones peers is purely psychological in nature. The phrase 'pity the criminal, because his fate is in the hands of twelve people not smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty' isn't just a joke.

[The Yosemite Bear]

hmm, and considering how many cases of people who have been given last minute holds have released innocent folks in the last two decades where they wouldn't have even known in earlier times, really brings to question, such an insistance. When despite modern evidence of tampering, Jury, Prosicution, Judge, and defense lawyer being openly pro lindberg and anti-semtic in the Haupman trial, and his execution still not being considered a miscarraige of justice....

yeah, right.

[Darth Wong]

Also, the law says a Jury of your Peers. Understandably, changing the jury system means changing that, but I think there's something comforting about knowing that the jury is made up of normal people that are screened for previous prejudices.

That is so incredibly naive.

Creating a staff of professional jurors, even if originally unbiased, will foster prejudice in the jurors. After sentencing say, a dozen drug dealers, the thirteenth defendant charged with distributing illegal drugs, may start looking like the last twelve. Even if the guy was just in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is the case, rather than your personal speculation based on social programming?

People charge with pedophilia, a crime notoriously hated by everyone, are unlikely to see any more of a fair trial when the jury has in the past sat through trials dealing with pedophilia.

Why? Because you say so?

[Elfdart]

The problem is less with the death penalty than the jury system, however, which means we take mouth-breathing retards off the street and when they see a so-called "expert" like that fire marshal tell them the evidence incontrovertibly proves the guy did it, they vote to kill him. We need more to eliminate trial by jury and replace it with inquiries based on the establishment of fact; I would go so far as to completely eliminate civilian participation and create entirely a court system made up based entirely on trial by panels of professional and highly trained jurors, their training making them an even mix of forensic scientists and lawyers.

It wasn't just the jury that sent this man to his death. The prosecutors, the trial judge and the appellate judges also believed the fire marshal's evidence. By your logic, we should not only get rid of juries, but prosecutors and judges, too.

We furthermore need to divorce evidence gathering from the prosecutor's office. The actual prosecution should be a separate organization of attorneys general with the gathering of evidence being done by a Forensic Departments separate from both the police and the offices of attorneys general; the Forensic Departments would present the evidence to the professional trained jurors and then the attorneys general prosecuting the case and the defence attorneys could throw their own interpretations and observations onto the evidence provided.

Because the "experts" did such a good job in this case -oh wait...

I'll also say that if this article is correct and he was, indeed, falsely executed, that though the death penalty might be sustainable in a system such as that which I describe above; it is not sustainable in the current incompetent and useless jury system, and therefore as long as that system remains and there have, indeed, been people falsely executed by it in the modern era, the death penalty must be with some reluctance abolished.

Aside from the comment about juries, I agree on this score. The new DA for Dallas County has, along with the Innocence Project of Texas, uncovered twelve cases of people being convicted of crimes they could not have possibly committed. That's one county out of 254 in Texas. The Dallas DA's office (before Watkins) was world famous for framing innocent people under Henry Wade (as in Roe vs Wade). The justice system in this state is too fucked up to be allowed to execute anyone. But the juries aren't the problem.

I can't imagine accepting a jury trial for any kind of crime under the sun, personally--I'd take a demand for trial by judge straight to the supreme court if I had to rather than accept one, if the request for a trial by judge was refused to me.

In Texas that would put you in the fast lane to prison or death row.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In Texas that would put you in the fast lane to prison or death row.

Anything does in Texas, particularly for me; ergo, I simply plan to never go to Texas.

[Serafina]

In Texas that would put you in the fast lane to prison or death row.

Anything does in Texas, particularly for me; ergo, I simply plan to never go to Texas.

Wait, what? You are expeting a death penalty, simply because you are who you are?!

Damn, your situation is even more messed up than i thought. If you ever have the possibility, come to Europe

[The Yosemite Bear]

Texas has a reputation for jury manipulation, and they used to have a quack shrink that argued pro-death penalty in every trial he was called to testify at, which got him disbarred by the american psychiatric scocity, after he earned the same nick name shared by Kevorkian, an IRA terrorist, and Mengele. There's a good bit about him in the documentry "A thin Blue Line."

[Simon_Jester]

In Texas that would put you in the fast lane to prison or death row.

Anything does in Texas, particularly for me; ergo, I simply plan to never go to Texas.

Yes, but if people are getting executed for no good reason in Texas because both the Texan juries and the Texan judges are biased, the failure of Texan juries isn't all that good an argument for replacing them with Texan judges. Replacing them with better judges from somewhere else might work, but then again so might replacing the juries with better juries from somewhere else.

To argue for the inherent superiority of judges over juries, you'd be better advised to look for places where you can prove that the judges would have ruled correctly when the juries ruled incorrectly- such as places where a lot of jury verdicts get thrown out as mistrials.

[Lusankya]

To argue for the inherent superiority of judges over juries, you'd be better advised to look for places where you can prove that the judges would have ruled correctly when the juries ruled incorrectly- such as places where a lot of jury verdicts get thrown out as mistrials.

You mean like Melbourne?