Well, looks like Texas executed an innocent man

Here is the story:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/050206dntexinnocence.1cf614f.html

"*On Tuesday, Cameron Todd Willingham’s last defenders – three relatives and a longtime opponent of the death penalty – argued that he was right: Texas killed an innocent man.

The New York-based Innocence Project presented a report signed by five arson experts that dissects trial testimony against Mr. Willis and Mr. Willingham now known to be based on obsolete assumptions. The center argued that the state should review all arson convictions.

“When do we start paying attention to these serious mistakes?” asked Barry Scheck, director of the project. “There was no credible scientific evidence to lead to the conviction, much less the execution, of Cameron Todd Willingham.” "*

also here:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Executions_Arson.html

*“It’s time to find out whether Texas executed an innocent man,” said Barry Scheck, co-director of the New York-based Innocence Project.

Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of arson murder in 1992 and executed in 2004. Ernest Willis, however, was convicted of the same type of crime but exonerated after getting sentenced to death and serving 17 years in prison.

“Somebody’s got to be right or wrong about this,” Scheck said, stressing that the two cases relied on similar evidence and testimony but ended in two entirely different outcomes.*

The Chigaco news: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0412090169dec09,1,1593269.story
*"While Texas authorities dismissed his protests, a Tribune investigation of his case shows that Willingham was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. According to four fire experts consulted by the Tribune, the original investigation was flawed and it is even possible the fire was accidental.

Before Willingham died by lethal injection on Feb. 17, Texas judges and Gov. Rick Perry turned aside a report from a prominent fire scientist questioning the conviction.

The author of the report, Gerald Hurst, reviewed additional documents, trial testimony and an hourlong videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene at the Tribune’s request last month. Three other fire investigators–private consultants John Lentini and John DeHaan and Louisiana fire chief Kendall Ryland–also examined the materials for the newspaper.

“There’s nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire,” said Hurst, a Cambridge University-educated chemist who has investigated scores of fires in his career. “It was just a fire.”"*

Now, many dudes have come here and claimed that “so and so was innccent but executed”. But most times, the claims of “innocence” rely upon later recantations of Eyewitness testimony (recantations are rather common, and not to be relied upon) or small gaps or questions about the trial or defense. In almsot all the cases we have had a definate murder victim, and a convicted defendent with a serious felony record. So, perhaps we have doubts as to the “beyond all serious doubt” part of the conviction, but there is rarely any doubt as to the Motive, means, opportunity and especially that a Murder has actually been commited, and iof not by the defendant, then by who? Thus, I am often rather dubious about cries of “he’s innocent”, especially when the two most publizied “poster boys” (Tookie Williams and that cop-killer out East, what’shisname?) have left me with no doubt at all about their guilt.
But here, we have no crime at all. There was no murder. There was only two bits of evidence against Willingham- some bad science that turned an accidental fire into arson, and a “jailhouse informant” :dubious: - which is something Texas justice (and others, too) seems to rely upon hwaaaay too heavily: *"Prosecutors presented as their first witness jail inmate Johnny E. Webb, a drug addict who said he took psychiatric medication for post-traumatic stress syndrome, the result of being raped behind bars.

Webb testified that Willingham, after repeatedly denying he had caused the fire, confessed to Webb one day as they spoke through a chuckhole in a steel door at the county jail.

Webb said Willingham told him he set the fire to cover up his wife’s physical abuse of one of the girls. The girls, however, had no injuries other than those suffered in the fire."*

OK, can anyone defend the Death Penalty in Texas after this?

Nope, I can’t. But, I did not have any faith in the Texas judical system beforehand.

This was first discussed in a thread that took a very, very bad detour.

Texas - An Evil State

My first shock at Bush was when he was told that Illinois Governor had halted executions because they had killed innocent people.Texas has lead the country in executions and they are proud of it.Bush looked into the camera and said Texas has never executed an innocent man.

Well, actually I believe he said “We in Texas have never executed a guilty m-innocent, I mean innocent!”

From a book of “Bushisms”, and seeing how Dan Qualye-isms have been passed of a Bushisms, I’m not sure its going to be accurate. But its still fun.

I don’t recall anyone claiming Tookie Williams was innocent.

I think you’re remembering this, where you dismissed a recantation. Funny, I found that case had a much higher likelihood of miscarriage of justice than this one.

Witnesses saw Willingham outside the trailer before actual flames began -Cameron Todd Willingham #899

I agree that the death penalty has probably killed innocent people, and I’m against the death penalty. However, this case is no more questionable than many other recent ones - there was evidence besides the cause-of-fire testimony by arson ‘experts.’

So they were swayed by the testimony that Willingham did it, but discounted the testimony that he did it to cover his wife’s abuse of the girl? Seems to me that if you accept one, you’ve got to accept the other- or throw the whole testimony out.

As to point #1:
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2313.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10252436/

and in this thread some posters seem to claim Tookie “wuz innocent”
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6892298&highlight=tookie+innocent#post6892298
or here
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6884810&highlight=tookie+innocent#post6884810

Witnesses saw no such thing-well, at least according to your cite:"*Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. * "- here’s what the Tribune said: *"When debris began to fall from the ceiling, burning his shoulder, he said he fled through the hall and out the front door.

He tried to go back into the house, he said, but it was too hot. He saw neighbors and told them to call the Fire Department, screaming, “My babies is in there and I can’t get them out.”

Neighbor Mary Barbee told police she saw Willingham in the front yard and she ran to ask a neighbor to call for help because her telephone was disconnected.

Meanwhile, Willingham told investigators, he took a pool cue and knocked out two windows overlooking the front porch to try to get into the bedroom.

Barbee said that when she returned, Willingham was standing by a chain-link fence as heavy smoke billowed from the house. Just as she neared his yard, “large fire suddenly bellowed out from around the front of the house,” she told investigators, then the windows blew out.

She said that was when Willingham rushed to his garage and pushed his car away from the fire scene." * Note that when the fire “blew out” the windows, it had already been burning for a while.

The point is- if there was no arson- and the experts now agree there was no arson- there was no murder. Sure, maybe the dude panicked and could have done more to save his kids had he thought clearly. But, panicking or acting stupid in the face of an emergency is not “murder”.

What other evidence might you be talking about? :dubious:

Here’s the case in question, with write-ups from both sides:
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htm

While the evidence in the Willis case was similar to the Willingham case, additional factors probably played a large role in the overturn of Willis’ conviction (the prosecution secretly arranged for mickeys to be mixed with his food before court appearances and was also found to withhold evidence favorable to Willis). If I remember correctly Willis was also a hero, having risked his own life to save another man, FWIW.

As for the often mentioned lack of evidence proving an innocent have been executed I would just like to say that when someone is executed the case is considered closed and all the evidence is usually destroyed. Innocence is virtually impossible to establish post-execution.

Not true. He did not claim innocent people had been killed. Also note that the governor wants to fix the system, not permanently eliminate the death penalty.

Not sure what you’re point is. This guy was executed in 2004. Ryan suspended the death penalty in 2003.

I’m against that death penalty, but let’s get the facts straight.

Unfortunately, most people in the US still favor the death penalty. Polling on this issue is a bit tricky, as you get different numbers depending on how you ask the question, but I’ve never seen a poll that had more Americans opposed to the death penalty than in favor (numbers in favor range from ~50% to ~60%).

Wow. Some people did claim Tookie was innocent. The protests I heard about focused on him being a ‘changed man.’

Also from my cite:
“Summary: Two days before Christmas in 1991, Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floor throughout his home and intentionally set the house on fire, resulting in the death of his three children. According to autopsy reports, Amber, age two, and twins Karmon and Kameron, age 1, died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children.”

Experts agree they just don’t know. It mighta been arson, mighta not, but all the ‘tell-tale’ clues are old wives’ tales. They don’t point to arson, but neither do they preclude arson.

I agree with you that there are far more questionable cases out there, but you’re missing the point here. Arson experts examined the case and found that the fire wasn’t caused by arson. Other arson experts have come to the same conclusion in similar cases, and the methods once employed by arson experts are now considered unreliable.

It doesn’t matter what the guy did afterwards, or for that matter how he lived his life. If there’s no evidence of arson there’s no evidence of arson. Maybe/maybe not, just isn’t good enough in the courtroom.

The NY Times disagrees - this story says the cause of the fire was uncertain.

Kindly allow me to rephrase: “Arson experts examined the case and found that the evidence presented at trial didn’t indicate arson”. :rolleyes:

Or, why don’t we simply go the the source:
Neither the fire that killed the three Willingham children nor the fire that killed Elizabeth Grace Belue and Gail Joe Allison were incendiary fires. The artifacts examined and relied upon by the fire investigators in both cases are the kind of artifacts routinely created by accidental fires that progress beyond flashover.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/ArsonReviewReport.pdf

Anyway, these methods as well as methods for comparing hair samples prior to DNA are now regarded as, well, not very accurate. It’s called progress.

Resurrected!! Since this was mentioned today in a Trumpy thread today…

After reading this investigative article, I’m convinced Cameron Todd Willingham is innocent. And Texas courts really, really suck.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire/amp

Assuming the following is correct (from Murderpedia):
*At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful. *

Who the hell cares? We put down a dangerous animal, not a human being. Our (Texas’) only crime was taking so damned long to do it.

Oh right, that qualifies as “not a human being.” :rolleyes:

He burned his children to death so he could cash in on an insurance policy. What would you call such a creature?

Evidence suggests otherwise.

The evidence says he did it. Some people with an agenda choose to pretend it doesn’t.