There is strong, if but not conclusive, evidence suggesting that Texas executed an innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham. Radley Balko reports that some fear the Lone Star state is about to do it again in the case of Hank Skinner. DNA testing of remaining evidence might put an end to such fears, and provide further evidence of Skinner’s evidence or guilt, but state officials are resisting such tests. As Balko writes:
After a conviction, the criminal justice system tends put a premium on finality, setting a high bar for reopening or retrying old cases. Given the Willingham case and the spate of exonerations across Texas, perhaps it’s time the state put less emphasis on finality, and more on certainty. DNA testing in Skinner’s case may not bring us closer to closing those 1993 murders, but it will bring us closer to discovering the truth about them. In a capital case especially, that alone should be reason enough to to go through with the tests.
UPDATE: Some object to my claim that there is “strong” evidence that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent. I believe this to be the case. The forensic evidence relied upon at his trial has been thoroughly debunked. Some circumstantial evidence supporting his conviction remains — and he may well have been guilty — but I sincerely doubt he would have been convicted were it not for the questionable forensics.
John Herbison says:
Bloodlust. Sheer, ugly bloodlust.
I wonder. Have the self-styled “pro-life” folks weighed in on this?
March 7, 2010, 11:32 pmJ. Aldridge says:
So Skinners explanation is he was too drugged with codeine and alcohol to have committed the murders? But I wonder if he didn’t plan a murder/suicide crime? Anyway, I don’t understand why there shouldn’t be a DNA testing. There can be no “finality” when there is substantial evidentiary issue to question finality. I don’t think such questions are possible today with the widespread use of DNA testing.
March 8, 2010, 12:02 amDave N. says:
John Herbison,
Many pro-life people are also anti-capital punishment (the heirarchy of the Catholic Church comes immediately to mind).
So thank you for the off-topic, ad hominem sneer. It clearly demonstrates your trollish abilities.
March 8, 2010, 12:06 amCornellian says:
Bet on Governor Perry doing whatever he can to prevent exonerating evidence from coming to light. He seems to have gotten away with it in the Willingham case so why not repeat the pattern here?
March 8, 2010, 12:16 amArthur Kirkland says:
My experience (Texas resident 20-plus years ago, with some familiarity with the criminal justice system) suggests that, unless things have changed, this fellow (if innocent) picked the wrong state in which to be wrongly convicted. The Texas officials resisting DNA testing are doing what many, if not most, Texans desire, without much regard for guilt or innocence. It doesn’t surprise me that those fighting for this condemned man are not Texas residents. Texas (Austin, at least) can be a nice place if you have some money, are white, and don’t give a damn about anyone else. Otherwise, not so much. I would expect Rick Perry, even after watching a videotape of someone else committing the relevant murders, to sign the death warrant without so much as a flicker of introspection, particularly if he is campaigning.
I hope, if this fellow is innocent, I am proven wrong.
March 8, 2010, 12:25 amleo marvin says:
Ya think?
March 8, 2010, 12:36 amJohn Herbison says:
Credit should be given where it is due. The district attorney in Dallas has been reopening investigations into cases where wrongful convictions may have occurred.
March 8, 2010, 12:40 amKent Scheidegger says:
“There is strong, if not conclusive, evidence suggesting that Texas executed an innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham.”
Huh? Nobody in his right mind would consider the evidence conclusive. Strong is a considerable overstatement.
You don’t still think that New Yorker article is an accurate statement of the evidence, do you Jonathan?
March 8, 2010, 1:03 amSoronel Haetir says:
I’ve seen enough instances where Balko shaded his stories of injustice to make them appear much stronger than they actually are that I no longer trust him to have given an accurate account of facts. I wish Reason would exercise tighter editorial control, I like the magazine but it isn’t helpful to be so easily dismissed.
March 8, 2010, 1:15 amAndrew says:
I think it’s very possible that Cameron Todd Willingham murdered his three children. It will be interesting to see what the Texas Forensics Science Commission concludes.
March 8, 2010, 1:27 amHistory Punk says:
Bart: Mom, what if there’s a really bad, crummy guy who’s going to jail, but I know he’s innocent?
Marge: Well Bart, your Uncle Arthur used to have a saying: “Shoot ‘em all and let God sort them out.” Unfortunately, one day he put his theory into practice. It took seventy-five Federal Marshals to bring him down. Now let’s never speak of this again.
Of course, Texas would have elected Uncle Arthur governor insted of listening to Marge’s advice that they “should listen to your heart and not the voices in your head like a certain uncle did one grey December morn.”
P.S. Never forgot – Justice is not a frivolous thing, Simpson. It has little if anything to do with a disobedient whale. Now let’s vote!
March 8, 2010, 1:29 amJR says:
Would you at least concede a more-than-reasonable doubt exists as to his guilt?
March 8, 2010, 1:32 amJR says:
Also, re: Willingham, fire science may not be the largest forensic specialization, but there are more than a few fire investigators in this country, many of whom work exclusively or near-exclusively with law enforcement. At this point, at least nine outside experts without any direct connection to the Willingham case have reviewed it and determined that the investigators screwed up the science: to my knowledge (and please, by all means correct me if I’m wrong), not one additional expert has been willing to sign onto the evidence that the state used to convict Willingham, in no small part because such “evidence” is so thoroughly discredited at this point that it would almost certainly be an ethical breach for an investigator to advocate its reliability.
I find it telling that the post-execution reviews have been so one-sided in their conclusions, especially considering that this is without a doubt the biggest fire science case of at least the last twenty years (at least since the Lime Street Fire in 1990). It shouldn’t be this hard, if the forensic evidence against Willingham could possibly sustain a conviction, to find some investigator willing to hitch his wagon to this particular horse. Yet here we are.
March 8, 2010, 2:00 amJR says:
FYI: Balko and Dr. Craig Beyler (author of the TFSC report on the Willingham and Ernest Willis cases) will be discussing the forensics behind the Willingham case at Georgetown Law on 3/23. Hart Auditorium, 6 p.m.
March 8, 2010, 2:02 amJohn Herbison says:
Did Governor Perry’s shenanigans with the replacement of members of the Forensic Science Commission become an issue in the Texas Republican Primary for governor? Did any “pro-life” groups raise that question?
March 8, 2010, 3:02 amtvk says:
Many pro-life people are also anti-capital punishment.
True, if you take a literal view of “many,” in that I can probably count a lot of heads. But probably not a majority. In fact, I think there is a strong correlation between being anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, and voting Republican. It is one of those basic traits of being a modern conservative. The Catholic church is prominent precisely it is the exception that proves the rule. Many more prominent examples (e.g. Justice Scalia, and virtually every Republican politician I can think of) fit the rule instead of your exception.
In short, I think you are being rather unfair in attacking the comment as a troll.
March 8, 2010, 4:14 amrhhardin says:
Everybody understands that sometimes you have to take one for the team.
March 8, 2010, 4:33 amJustin Levine says:
I agree that DNA tests should be used in all situation where it is practical and can provide evidence from which solid conclusions (or establishment of solid doubt) can be drawn, regardless of what stage the proceedings of justice are at.
With that said here is what prosecutor (now Judge)John Jackson points out:
Always omitted from any examination of the actual trial are the following facts:
1. The event which caused the three childrens’ deaths was the third attempt by Todd Willingham to kill his children established by the evidence. He had attempted to abort both pregnancies by vicious attacks on his wife in which he beat and kicked his wife with the specific intent to trigger miscarriages;
2. The “well-established burns” suffered by Willingham were so superficial as to suggest that the same were self-inflicted in an attempt to divert suspicion from himself;
3. Blood-gas analysis at Navarro Regional Hospital shortly after the homicide revealed that Willingham had not inhaled any smoke, contrary to his statement which detailed “rescue attempts;”
4. Consistent with typical Navarro County death penalty practice, Willingham was offered the opportunity to eliminate himself as a suspect by polygraph examination. Such opportunity was rejected in the most vulgar and insulting manner;
5. Willingham was a serial wife abuser, both physically and emotionally. His violent nature was further established by evidence of his vicious attacks on animals which is common to violent sociopaths;
6. Witness statements established that Willingham was overheard whispering to his deceased older daughter at the funeral home, “You’re not the one who was supposed to die.” (The origin of the fire occured in the infant twins bedroom) and;
7. Any escape or rescue route from the burning house was blocked by a refrigerator which had been pushed against the back door, requring any person attempting escape to run through the conflagration at the front of the house.
Read his full statement here:
http://corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/x46870434/-08-28-09-JACKSON-Guest-Commentary-Willingham-guilt-never-in-doubt?keyword=topstory
March 8, 2010, 5:08 amsalacious says:
@20:
Frankly, if those largely irrelevent arguments are the best defense the prosecutor can concoct for the conviction, I’m inclined to count that as a point in favor of those arguing for Willingham’s innocence.
March 8, 2010, 6:04 amtarheel says:
And Texas has apparently adopted the “it’s very possible” burden of proof for criminal prosecutions.
March 8, 2010, 6:41 amLN says:
Not just for prosecutions, but for capital punishment cases.
“Such opportunity was rejected in the most vulgar and insulting manner.” LOL.
March 8, 2010, 7:08 amDavid Schwartz says:
Justin Levine: “Any escape or rescue route from the burning house was blocked by a refrigerator which had been pushed against the back door, requiring any person attempting escape to run through the conflagration at the front of the house.” Are you trying to deniably insinuate that it was placed there for that purpose? Isn’t it inexcusably dishonest to say that when we know that it was not placed there specifically to block the exit?
Also, can you explain why the only place traces of accelerant were found is the place consistent with Willingham’s version of events (by the barbecue)? Why was none found in all of the places he would have had to put it had he used accelerant to start the fire?
So many of the other points are nonsense. Willingham’s burns were consistent with his version of events. And Willingham’s rescue efforts could have been made up (equally consistent with guilt for setting the fire and guilt for, in fear, trying only to save himself) or been stopped by heat rather than smoke.
March 8, 2010, 7:27 amChrisHo says:
Pro-life never stood for all life, some life is not fit to live in civilized societies, it always amazes me how much we do to preserve the later
March 8, 2010, 7:32 ampublic_defender says:
When prosecutors say that a case has been reviewed by X number of judges Y times, it often means that X number of judges have decided Y times not to even consider the merits of the case.
I once argued a sufficiency of the evidence argument in a capital case (another way of saying “he didn’t do it.” One of the prosecutor’s responses was that defense attorneys only raise innocence when we don’t have any real arguments.
The prosecutor had a point. “I didn’t do it” is one of the weakest arguments you can raise on appeal. The judges will say that the jury looked at the evidence, so the judges won’t second guess them. This is why we defense attorneys quickly learn to concentrate on procedural arguments. Those arguments may drive the public batty, but we can win them with less difficulty than we can win by arguing innocence.
March 8, 2010, 7:49 amR. Nebblesworth says:
From the Corsica article: ” I am convinced that in the absence of any arson testimony, the outcome of the trial would have been unchanged . . . ”
What?! The whole theory was that he killed the kids by setting the place on fire! Isn’t “arson testimony” kinda important to proving the case?
March 8, 2010, 8:06 amFantasiaWHT says:
I don’t know, but have the “pro-choice” folks weighed in on a health insurance mandate?
March 8, 2010, 8:08 amEric Welch says:
“When we recognize that legal rules are simply formulae describing uniformities of judicial decision, that legal concepts likewise are patterns or functions of judicial decisions, that decisions themselves are not products of logical parthenogenesis born of pre-existing legal principles but are social events with social causes and consequences, then we are ready for the serious business of appraising law and legal institutions in terms of some standard of human values.”
March 8, 2010, 8:19 amFelix Cohen, Columbia Law Review, 1935
ShelbyC says:
Well, I think it’s very possible that you killed them. Is there currently any more evidence that he killed them then there is that you killed them?
March 8, 2010, 10:01 amJoe says:
I don’t know, but have the “pro-choice” folks weighed in on a health insurance mandate?
Yes, they argue that the mandate is necessary for the health insurance system being proposed, which is necessary in their view to provide a fair system for all to have a means to have health care options. That is, the realistic means to “choose” health care options at all.
But, bonus explanation. Some people believe that the death penalty is necessary to protect the sanctity of life by executing people who willfully murder people in particularly heinous ways. Embryos and fetuses not of this class, they are treated differently. Anyway, by mere numbers, lots more abortions occur anyways than executions, even if a heck of a lot more of the latter were done. If needless war etc. are factor in, the numbers do change somewhat.
What “sanctity of life” means is open to debate. Thus, belief that euthanasia is acceptable doesn’t necessarily mean you reject it. And, obviously (well, to some people) abortion has various differences from capital punishment no matter what side you are on. Playing with labels is not really a productive way to go here.
March 8, 2010, 10:10 amAndrew says:
Yes, Shelby, there is. While it is “possible” that I killed them, it is not “very possible” that I killed them.
The man left his house while leaving his kids inside to die, he was seen crouching outside his house before it was engulfed in flames instead of trying to get them, while his kids were roasting he moved his car further from the fire, he had a record of prior violence, et cetera, et cetera.
March 8, 2010, 10:10 amJoe says:
In this context, I think the legal definition of “innocent” matters too — even if someone did it, they are not even put in prison if not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Well, that is the idea ... and I realize the whole pre-trial confinement issue is there too.] The death penalty tends to require something else than just doing the crime — for instance, an aggravating factor, to be shown as well.
So, it isn’t even if one of these people could have done it. It is if the evidence would have met the burden of proof. I realize that post-conviction, it is harder to overturn a verdict. But, bottom line, the fact that people might be guilty, even in a 60/40 sense of the way, if there is reasonable doubt, they shouldn’t be executed.
March 8, 2010, 10:16 amSarcastro says:
[I may disagree with pro life folks, but they are consistent at least. Those that favor the death penalty make a distinction between the innocent life to be aborted, and the guilty dude being executed.]
March 8, 2010, 10:21 amsardonic_sob says:
“Very possible” is not the standard of proof we use in these matters. There are several extremely good reasons for that.
March 8, 2010, 10:23 amwill47 says:
The arguments Justin makes from the Corsicana Daily sun remind me a lot of the sort of arguments you hear from the plaintiffs’ bar in tort cases. Indeed, I can imagine John Edwards delivering number 6 (which is likely apocryphal), trying to choke back faux tears, at closing. What’s so wrong with keeping junk science out of both the civil and criminal courtrooms? Or, you know, actually requiring the prosecution or the plaintiff to prove causation?
March 8, 2010, 10:24 ambyomtov says:
Is there a way to put the whole Texas criminal justice system into some sort of moral receivership?
Refusal to test the DNA? Let’s say somehow the DNA gets tested and exonerates Skinner. Why wouldn’t those resisting the testing be guilty of attempted murder?
And isn’t there a strong case that Rick Perry killed Willingham? Yet the man is in the Governor’s mansion instead of on death row.
March 8, 2010, 10:38 amAndrew says:
I’m well aware of that. Note that Professor Adler said in his blog post update: “he may well have been guilty.” Of course, that is not the standard of proof either, but it’s still quite true.
It also seems interesting that the Governor of Texas has denounced as “propaganda” the criticism of the fire forensics in this case. So, I’m curious to see if the State of Texas can back that up. My understanding is that the jurors in the case are still standing by their verdict. By the way, yes, I do realize that the Governor and the jurors are not simply neutral observers now.
March 8, 2010, 10:39 amJennifer says:
While I think it’s true that the justice system in general puts a premium on finality, when I worked for the Oregon Justice Dept. in the Corrections division (doing habeus corpus review and state post-conviction review), the first thing we were told is that precisely because of the finality conferred by the proceedings we were involved in, the state had every interest in fixing any errors that occurred. By policy, the State would admit any error and fix it immediately. In practice, we were told, there were rarely errors that rose to the required legal level to justify action, other than mistakes in calculating sentences. But if there was such an error, our job was to make sure the state knew about it so it could be fixed.
I think that’s a healthy way of looking at it. The hurdle then becomes the sometimes draconian rules that require errors to be so very egregious before they are actionable. But it wasn’t the State that was the problem; it was the system of case law by which is was governed.
March 8, 2010, 10:44 amGreg says:
Frankly, the burn patterns and fire damage alone show this was an intentional fire. Willinghams actions afterward show his actions to be suspicious. Don’t forget, 12 jurors who had access to the entire case report found him guilty. I would have too.
So far, the “debunking” evidence is based on new terms for old evidence, and one persons opinion. Another person would have a different opinion. Fire investigation is an evolving field, and yes, each year there are new terms added for the same old fire patterns. It still does not change what the fire pattern is.
March 8, 2010, 10:47 amDavid Schwartz says:
Greg: Right, just like replacing DNA tests with tea leaves or fingerprint comparison with trial by ordeal is just another way of measuring the same thing. The burn patterns and fire damage will be exactly the same whether the cigarette was tossed on the couch by accident or a match was thrown onto the couch on purpose. The difference will be that if accelerant is used, there will be traces of accelerant.
The 12 jurors had access to the entire case. But they also had access to a lot of forensic analysis that was based on a complete lack of understanding of how fires actually burn.
If you honestly believe that fire forensics is just “one person’s opinion” and that another person might have “a different opinion”, then none of the fire forensics should ever have been considered.
March 8, 2010, 10:59 amNobody Really says:
There is a huge difference between that and saying there is conclusive evidence that an innocent man was executed. Not only is there not conclusive evidence, there is apparently no evidence. There is very conclusive evidence that some of the evidence used to convict was wrong. The totality of what is left may leave reasonable doubt, at which point we can say that Texas executed a man about whom there was reasonable doubt about his guilt. But if there is conclusive, or even strong, evidence that Willingham was in fact innocent, none of the proponents of that position are presenting it here.
March 8, 2010, 11:05 amChris Travers says:
In the Willingham trial what you have to understand is that the forensics used to convict him were in the process of being debunked in the era of his trial. Forensics examiners were using indicators which had already been removed from many jurisdictions’ toolkit because they were by no means seen as reliable. Worse, there are hundreds of people still incarcerated under this sort of evidence, so those of us who follow the larger issue realize that Willingham was only unusual in the sense that he was executed on such evidence instead of thrown in prison for life without parole.
The problem is that the older techniques didn’t factor in the fact that flashover was the most common cause of very hot house fires. The older techniques assumed that hot fires could only occur when accellerants were used.
The simple fact is that there are hundreds of probably-innocent people in jail for arson-murder on faulty forensics simply because their houses, when they burned down, experienced flashover.
What I don’t understand here though is why everyone makes a big deal over the executions of likely innocent people but doesn’t suggest that there is the same burden when looking at LWOP. I think that if DNA testing becomes possible in any case of long-term imprisonment or the death penalty, the state should have the obligation to follow it up.
March 8, 2010, 11:23 amChris Travers says:
The tough question is what you do when a major part of the forensics of a certain field (as in there, fire investigations) turns out to be bunk. The forensic evidence against Willingham was accepted in the time of his trial (though was becoming controversial even then), and has been thoroughly debunked since.
I don’t have an answer here, and it’s a really tough question.
March 8, 2010, 11:30 amEricPWJohnson says:
Prof Adler
Willingham was not convicted on forensic evidence – of which there was none = there rarely if ever is in arson. He was convicted on his three confessions and his statement to his dead daughter at her funeral. This notion by Dr Craig Beyler, who made no claim that it was not arson, nor made no claim that there was another explanation for the event, also Dr Beyler made three key errors in his criticism of Asst Fire Chief Vasquez
Beyler tried to impeach Vasqueza knowledge of fires upon three things
Wood Burning at 800 degrees
That Vasquez found most fires he investigated to be arson
And that the stains were propellant indicators
What I found out was that Dr Beyler had assumed F the 800 degrees remark by Vasquez was centigrade
Dr Beyler’s assertion that Vasquez found out most fires to be arson is correct FM Vasquez is only called to the scene when the local inspectors and investigators suspect arson – the State of Texas only investigates a small fraction of fires – Dr Beyler was totally incorrect on that issue as well as the Wood burning issue
There has been no factual asertion by Dr Beyler proving that the stains on the concrete floor were evaporation of water – these water stains were not found anywhere else water was put on the fire
Willingham confessed to arson investigators that he poured flammable material on the floor the day before
Willinghams attorneys never ever argued in court that his client did not set the fire – they argued he did not intend to kill the children
the 5th circuit court of appeals noted that the oldest child was deliberately tortured and burned with a lighter to frame her for causing the fire
March 8, 2010, 11:33 amreasonsformoving says:
What I hate about the death penalty debate is that there is nowhere to get independent, unbiased information. Yes, this is true about most things, but it seems particularly true about the death penalty. That leaves one the task of sifting through heavily biased “statements of fact” to come to an informed conclusion. A very difficult task indeed.
March 8, 2010, 11:35 amafmcclint says:
I agree with this assessment of the evidence. However, because a substantial portion of the government’s case was the testimony of a forensic analyst whose methods have been completely discredited, it is impossible to say that Willingham’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government had been forced to present its case without the benefit of a “scientist” telling the jury that the evidence was consistent with arson, or if the defense had been able to counter the government’s case with experts of its own, I don’t think any of us can say that the remaining evidence removes all reasonable doubt. Innocence or no, we don’t convict or execute people based on that standard.
Also, Justin Levine’s reliance on what the former prosecutor, now judge, has to say on the matter is naive. First, the guy has every incentive to argue that justice was served in a case in which he obtained a death sentence, and none to concede error. I’ve seen an interview with him in which he stated that it doesn’t matter if the forensic testimony was factually incorrect; because Willingham wore Iron Maiden shirts and “worshiped the devil,” he was an evil man who deserved to die.
Second, he got the title, “Judge,” through the electoral system. The title alone does not add any weight to his statements. And yes, I’m from Texas–small-town judicial elections do not necessarily provide about a person’s character or sense of justice.
Third, not all of the “evidence” listed should have gotten in. Much of it confirms only that Willingham was not a wonderful person. We try people only for charged acts, not for being “bad” people. As I noted above, though, the former prosecutor believes it was proper to execute a man based on his character, and that list of “evidence” tends to reveal a bad person.
I really wish people would quit citing the fact that he moved his car as evidence that he did committed arson and murder. While it plausible shows that he cared more about his car than his kids, it just as plausibly shows that he was aware that the car could blow up and make everything worse if it stayed too close to the house. Gasoline + fire is, apparently, a volatile combination.
March 8, 2010, 11:42 amChris Travers says:
It used to be fairly common to convict people of arson on the basis of the following investigative findings:
1) Alligatoring of burned wood
2) Crazing of glass
3) Multiple points where the fire burns between floors
The thing is, these are all signs of an unusually hot house fire (the glass crazes during a hot fire when it is sprayed with water), and that was seen (through at least the sixties) universally as evidence of arson. In the 70′s and 80′s this was starting to be more controversial as more effort was placed on understanding some issues of firefighter safety.
As of 2000, there were estimated to be over 200 people in prison convicted of arson-murder primarily on the above evidence. Whether or not Willingham was convicted primarily on that evidence or not, many those who are still in prison deserve exoneration.
It turns out that the missing element is that flashover is the primary cause of these three things. In other words, hot gasses pool at the ceiling until everything spontaneously combusts. This, by itself, causes the same burn patterns that previously forensic investigators looked for, because the flashover acts like an accellerant sprayed across the ceiling.
Today the science is better but more rarely comes into play.
March 8, 2010, 11:54 amEricPWJohnson says:
Chris
The 5th circuit in 2004 said that Vasquezs testimoney was an opinion and not the reason for the Jury Verdict
People are forgetting that Cameron confessed, his story was debunked by eyewitnessess, he confessed at the funeral that the oldest wasnt supposed to die and he confessed to his roommate in prison, overheard and confirmed by I think three other persons including a civilian contractor and a Prison Guard. He confessed to police that he did indeed pour an accellerant in the childrens room. He was on record trying to beat the twins while they were in gestation to abort them. He also took out two insurance policies just weeks before, had bought a truck with ther proceeds and was fleeing when arrested.
Dr Beyler is being questioned by Walmart in The Texas State Supreme Court in this case
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs//09/09022402.pdf
March 8, 2010, 11:57 amMilhouse says:
John Herbison wrote:
What shenanigans? There were vacancies on the board, so he appointed some new members to fill them. Some of the outgoing members had hoped he would reappoint them, but he decided not to. How is that even a tiny shenanigan? I don’t know much about the facts in this case, but I do know that if someone claims Perry’s actions were shenanigan-like then I need pay no attention to anything else that person has to say on the case.
March 8, 2010, 11:57 amEricPWJohnson says:
Dr Beyler ignored this evidence and said a Halogen lamp exploded (the only case in the US to make this claim) and the hot shards caused the fire instead of this:
Immediately after the fire, police officers who investigated the scene found
cigarette butts) on a table next to a recliner in the area they believed to be the “hot spot” of
the fire. CR 383-84, 392, CR 404-05, 411-12. Evidence of marijuana smoking—including several joints, pipes, and a bong—was found throughout the house. CR 384-85, 405. Ms. Gibson’s cigarette smoking habit was later reported by friends and co-workers, and toxicology reports revealed marijuana in the systems of both victims, indicating they had
smoked during the evening hours before their deaths. CR 208, 214, 416-17.
Now why would you even begin to believe Dr Beyler? He’s a hack for pay
March 8, 2010, 12:02 pmPintler says:
It doesn’t help after the fact, but it seems like some testing of forensic methods before using them in court would help quite a bit. Things like the FBI’s trace element bullet analysis and the Florida wonder dog who could ID suspects by smell years after the crime would fail the most cursory real world review or testing.
March 8, 2010, 12:04 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Assume for the sake of argument that all of those facts are actually established facts, that none of them are disputed: so what? I suppose some of them might make the case that he was callous or even negligent. But none of those alleged facts have anything to do with the actual gravamen of the murder case against him. You sort of have to show that he set the fire in order to convict him of setting the fire.
If there’s no evidence the fire was set — and there isn’t, according to the many arson experts who reviewed the file — then there’s no crime, no matter how not nice of a person Willingham was.
March 8, 2010, 12:06 pmEricPWJohnson says:
David
I guess his confession to law enforcement the next day and to his cellmate and a prison guard and the forensic evidence that his injuries were consistent with “lighting” a fire had no weight. Dr
March 8, 2010, 12:16 pmBeyler is a witness for hire not a impartial witness.
Roger says:
Adler: strong evidence of innocence = possible that trial would not have resulted in convicted if certain evidence had been excluded.
This is deceptive terminology.
March 8, 2010, 12:17 pmAndrew says:
David M. Nieporent, I never said that he should have been convicted. On the other hand, it is not clear to me that he was innocent. There’s no contradiction there.
March 8, 2010, 12:46 pmbyomtov says:
Chris Travers,
The tough question is what you do when a major part of the forensics of a certain field (as in there, fire investigations) turns out to be bunk. The forensic evidence against Willingham was accepted in the time of his trial (though was becoming controversial even then), and has been thoroughly debunked since.
I don’t see why it’s a tough question. The evidence used to convict was invalid. What’s the normal procedure when that happens? I don’t think it really matters, as far as the defendant goes, whether the evidence was offered in good faith or with intent to deceive. It’s no good in either case.
March 8, 2010, 12:51 pmLN says:
Willingham’s “confessions” are hardly straightforward. Everyone (jailhouse snitch, wife) who has said he confessed also said at other times that he did not confess.
On the other hand, it was established at trial that he had a tattoo of a fist punching through a skull, plus some Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin posters, plus there was a psychologist willing to call him an extremely severe sociopath (after all, what kind of person kills his own kids), so it’s not like the physical arson evidence was really that critical for his execution.
March 8, 2010, 12:52 pmzuch says:
It’s amasing how many “confessions” you find … even in cases where subsequent DNA evidence has conclusively ruled out the defendant. Reliance on ‘witnesses’ (in fact, the overall requirement of the judicial system that any physical evidence be introduced by a witness) seems to be less and less warranted as we learn more about the inaccuracy of such evidence. Jailhouse snitches, in particular, ought to be looked at with a very jaundiced eye.
Cheers,
March 8, 2010, 12:59 pmAndrew says:
I definitely would have convicted him of having bad taste in tattoos. No doubt in my mind.
March 8, 2010, 1:00 pmzuch says:
A little bit of circulus in demonstrando?
Cheers,
March 8, 2010, 1:03 pmmattc says:
until the justice system properly defiens and accentuates “beyond all reasonable doubt” which is theoretcically an extremely high standard, persons will continue to be wrongly convicted
March 8, 2010, 1:08 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
When people lie about something so easily checked, it calls into question everything they say. The Fifth Circuit said that Vasquez’s testimony about whether he believed Willingham’s story about escaping through the hallway was harmless error, but it in no way said that Vasquez’s testimony was not a reason for the jury verdict. That would have been absurd; Vasquez testified that the fire was started deliberately. Without that, there was no evidence at all, except a prison snitch claiming he confessed.
(The fact that it was “an opinion” is a bizarre claim on your part; it was expert testimony.)
March 8, 2010, 1:13 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I guess it’s easier to convict someone when you make stuff up. Setting aside the minor errors (Webb was not a “cellmate,” but simply a fellow prison inmate), no, an alleged spontaneous confession to a prison snitch does not carry a whole lot of weight. He did not confess to law enforcement or a prison guard; I don’t know what on earth you’re talking about here.
As for “consistent with,” that’s just weasel wording. The same evidence can be “consistent with” a lot of things, including guilt or innocence; what “consistent with” means is that the person could not conclude that it showed he set the fire.
As for Beyler not being impartial, do you think Vasquez is impartial?
March 8, 2010, 1:28 pmNik B. says:
What the hell does his tattoo and posters have to do with anything? I’ve never seen his tattoo, but I suspect it’s this cover from the Iron Maiden single “Can I Play With Madness?” which you can see here, if so inclined:
http://michaelherringdesign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/26/can-i-play-with-madness.jpg
I’m curious what exactly you think that your statement achieves? Are you attempting to insinuate that having a tattoo and band posters is conclusive evidence of the intent to kill someone? If so, how do you decide which tattoos and which posters are such evidence and which aren’t? Is a Hannah Montana poster some sort of ‘murdered precursor’? Surely a Céline Dion one must be, right? And of course Luciano Pavarotti. Can’t forget him. Johnny Cash posters are, however, OK.
And I like your circular reasoning: “he’s a sociopath because what other kind of person would want to kills his kids. So, he killed his kids because he’s a sociopath.”
Please tell me you aren’t a prosecutor…
March 8, 2010, 3:00 pmLN says:
Nik B, I’m just a sarcastic blog commenter. Unfortunately for Willingham, the tatoos and posters actually came up at his trial.
March 8, 2010, 3:28 pmJK says:
Suppose Willingham committed the perfect arson, i.e. a fire that could not be proved to be arson by known forensic methods, but which could also not be proven to have been caused by any accidental source. Many commenters would then say he must not be convicted since there was no evidence of arson. But of course, there was lots of circumstancial and other direct evidence that the trial jury found to be relevant. A different jury hearing all of the evidence would still be armed with the knowledge that arson could not be completely ruled out, and thus, even in the absence of forensic proof either way, might might still have found him to be guilty. Suppose also that Willingham’s wife, unbeknownst to him, had installed a video surveillance system in the house, and the video clearly shows him setting the fire. There would STILL be no “fire science” evidence that he committed arson, but when the video is discovered, everyone would see first hand that he was guilty. The point is, the lack of 100% “fire science” proof of arson is meaningless. And, since no expert has produced any revised explanation for the fire, eliminating the “fire science” evidence against him certainly does not make him “likely innocent” by any stretch of the imagination.
March 8, 2010, 3:37 pmLN says:
there was lots of circumstancial and other direct evidence that the trial jury found to be relevant.
Like Iron Maiden posters and tatoos. A supposed confession to a jailhouse snitch who has recanted. Oh yeah, and some people who didn’t think that he had the appropriate emotional reaction. Slam dunk!
The point is, the lack of 100% “fire science” proof of arson is meaningless.
I wonder why the prosecution tried to introduce “fire science” proof of arson, given that it was totally meaningless.
Suppose Willingham committed the perfect arson, i.e. a fire that could not be proved to be arson by known forensic methods, but which could also not be proven to have been caused by any accidental source… Suppose also that Willingham’s wife, unbeknownst to him, had installed a video surveillance system in the house, and the video clearly shows him setting the fire
This is the most damning argument against Willingham I’ve seen yet. “What if he had committed the murder? Then the lack of evidence against him would be extremely misleading. Therefore we shouldn’t worry about evidence.”
March 8, 2010, 3:44 pmJR says:
You, sir, are absolutely full of it. It’s as if the Lime Street Fire, the Oakland wildfire review, and NFPA 921 never happened in your mind, isn’t it? Do you still think we should photograph the eyeballs of murder victims to see the last image they saw? Do you still believe that a floating woman is a witch?
The burn patterns were consistent with flashover, as was the description of the fire from both Willingham and eyewitnesses. People in 1991 didn’t really understand flashover, and they certainly didn’t understand burn patterns like they do today. To try and claim the burn patterns in this case point to arson is to expose a homicidal lack of intellectual integrity (or, as is just as likely, a profound ignorance). You’re reciting stuff with no clue as to what it means, thinking it’s authoritative because you happen to agree with the policy it leads to. That’s stupid and dangerous, and you ought to know better.
March 8, 2010, 4:19 pmJR says:
You, uh…you never actually looked at the record in this case, did you? Willingham maintained his innocence, the jailhouse snitch was the one who recanted, and he never confessed to pouring an accelerant. Either you’ve been misinformed and suckered or you’re lying about the evidentiary record. Neither possibility speaks well of you.
March 8, 2010, 4:24 pmJR says:
Your entire premise is that there was a crime: murder by arson. You can’t prove arson. Ergo, you can’t prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, YOU DON’T EXECUTE THE PERSON.
That this needs to be explained on a legal blog blows my mind.
March 8, 2010, 4:26 pmJR says:
In the wake of the Willingham debacle, the Texas Legislature created the TSFC to investigate cases exactly like this (indeed, the idea was to investigate this particular case, with an unbiased state agency in charge). The Commission unanimously announces it will review the Willingham and Willis cases (Willis was in an almost identical situation, but after the Chicago Tribune started digging into the Willingham case his case got attention and he was released). The commission unanimously hires Dr. Beyler. Dr. Beyler writes a critical report on the misconduct of the state’s witnesses in the case. Dr. Beyler is scheduled to present this report. Perry removes the TSFC’s chairman and enough board members to stop Beyler’s testimony 48 HOURS before he’s scheduled to give it, and gives some facially benign excuse that nobody with two dashes of common sense would buy for a second. And here you are.
Still think this was kosher? Bet you thought poll taxes and literacy tests were nice and neutral, too. Also, I can get you a great deal on a bridge if you’re interested…
March 8, 2010, 4:40 pmDavid Schwartz says:
“Willingham confessed to arson investigators that he poured flammable material on the floor the day before.”
That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. He concluded (correctly by logic, though incorrectly in fact) that he must have done so based on false claims the police made when they were interrogating him.
If I ask you “did you go to a 7-11 on May 11, 2007″ you’ll probably reply that you have no idea. You might have, you might not have. Now, suppose I tell you (lying) that we have photos showing you at a 7-11 on May 11, 2007. You will logically “confess” that yes, you probably did go to a 7-11 on May 11, 2007. Otherwise, how could we have those photos?
Only in this Kafkaesque sense did Willingham “confess” to pouring flammable material on the floor. And, again, no traces of such material were found, and they would have been found had they been there.
March 8, 2010, 4:40 pmJR says:
In other legal news: based on the legal prowess of pro-execution commenters on the legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” actual bullet wounds will no longer be necessary to convict someone of shooting another person to death. Nor will operation of a vehicle be necessary to give someone a speeding ticket. Comatose quadriplegics may now be charged with disturbing the peace, and having actually been dead at the time of any crime for which a person is charged will now be merely a rebuttable presumption.
March 8, 2010, 4:43 pmChris Travers says:
Is forensic interpretation “evidence?” or “expert opinion?” My understanding is that courts usually see it as the latter. Do you think it should be the former? If it’s the former, every time something like this is debunked does this mean we have to grant every arson-murder case a new trial?
March 8, 2010, 5:23 pmThales says:
Kent Scheidegger writes:
“You don’t still think that New Yorker article is an accurate statement of the evidence, do you Jonathan?”
To turn the tables and ask about your use of “still”, has someone authored a persuasive, well-evidenced rebuttal to anything essential in David Grann’s article?
March 8, 2010, 6:06 pmJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
I am pro-life, a Christian, evangelical Christian.
I support the death penalty for CAPITAL offenses in principle. I while back I concluded that I oppose the death penalty in practice — “dry labbing”; the “too close for comfort” links between prosectution, the police and the judges; and the license to lie with impunity that police and prosecutors seems to have.
Yeah. I rather do away with the death penalty in exchange for saving the innocents in the wombs.
March 8, 2010, 6:34 pmFub says:
If he exercises his right to silence in custody, and doesn’t testify at trial, he’ll have a better chance of convincing the jury.
March 8, 2010, 6:52 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Climate skeptics should point to arson investigation for an example of how supposedly scientific proof and simple cause and effect can turn out to be completely bogus. While the analogy is not perfect, one interesting parallel is that arson investigation went so far off for so long largely because there was no effort made to carefully test its conclusions under controlled conditions. Of course, with arson investigation this was possible, and as soon as it was done it was quickly revealed that much of what the experts thought they knew was completely wrong and failed under test. And, of course, most predictions of climate science are (for practical purposes) untestable. And most of the ones we can test and have tested have completely failed.
March 8, 2010, 6:57 pmEricPWJohnson says:
Jr and David
Willingham did confess to at that time his jail house roommate which was overheard
The 5th circuit weighed the totallity of Vasquezs testimony and there was the confession Willingham made to investigators that he poured an accelerant in the childrens room. There is also his confession, upon which most jurors that were interviewed, had relied on, the one where he spoke to the coffin of his two year old in front of many that she wasnt the one supposed to die.
Then there was the insurance policies and the fact he was fleeing when arrested with clothes and food in the back seat of his truck.
Then there is the fact that if you read carefully. Dr Beyler made several material errors in his report, of a more telling nature than anything he gleamed from fire Marshall Vasquez’s colorful testimony.
Dr Beyler is also not an arson investigator, he is an expert in designing fire suppression system modeling a totally different field and in the case I cited earlier, made up a fantastically impossible story, ignoring material evidence (such as a simple picture of the Willingham fire where the only fire damage was in the childrens room) that 2 stoned pot smoking UT professors who lit dozens of candles were killed by a mythical exploding halogen light – not the flammable materials they had left lit and scattered throughout the house.
March 8, 2010, 7:06 pmJohn Herbison says:
I am sure that it springs from my background as a criminal defense lawyer, but I would regard the government’s use of testimony from a jailhouse snitch about a defendant’s “confession” as being more probative of innocence than of guilt–the prosecutor’s admission that, hey, we don’t have a strong enough case that we can’t rest without presenting a scumbag.
March 8, 2010, 7:28 pmFrank Drackman says:
Thats why the founders put “Trial by Jury” in the Constitution instead of “Trial by pointy headed academics”.
March 8, 2010, 7:54 pmOK, the founders also wanted Senators elected by the State Legislatures, Slaves counted as 3/5 a person, and no interference with the Slave Trade for the first 20 years of the Republic…
I saw that case on one of those TV Crime shows, guy was guilty as Sin
Estell Coppedge says:
Hi,Hello it´s just i so worship your site, I would feel honored if you allow me to publish a adorable review about your great wordpress blog on my iPad Newssite http://ipadnewssvcip.insanejournal.com/data/rss would you say yes? Yours, Estell Coppedge
March 8, 2010, 7:55 pmJustin Levine says:
Curious that the New Yorker article deliberately omitted Willingham’s last words –
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2009/10/willinghams-last-words.html
No. This doesn’t help to prove guilt. But it DOES prove that the author of the New Yorker article is willing to omit facts in order to mislead readers, and that the rest of the article should be more closely scrutinized.
March 8, 2010, 8:04 pmSkeptical Juror says:
It’s interesting that almost all the comments debate whether Willingham was guilty or innocent, now that he is dead. Perhaps we can wait until after the 24th of this month to debate whether Hank Skinner was actually guilty or innocent.
Texas did in fact perform post-conviction DNA testing on fourteen items. None of the test results inculpated Hank Skinner. The tests either excluded him, were conveniently “inconclusive”, or mysteriously disappeared. That’s right. The results from the rape kit and the broken fingernail clippings disappeared. Texas will now not even acknowlege their existence.
One of the items excluding Hank Skinner was a hair found grasped in the victim’s dead hand. Before testing, the State was adamant that hair was grasped from the head of the killer as the victim struggled for for her life. (Hence the broken fingernails.) Once the results excluded Skinner, the state literally lied about the results for seven months, before finally publishing the results.
Of the many cases I’ve reviewed, the Hank Skinner case is by far the most egregious. Perhaps once he’s executed, as he most certainly will be, we can debate the issue.
March 8, 2010, 8:10 pmJR says:
Eric, here’s Beyler’s CV: judge for yourself if he’s a qualified expert on the subject at issue:
You also have Gerald Hurst, John Lentini, John DeHaan, Doug Carpenter, David Smith, Ken Ryland, and Daniel Churchward on record as saying the forensics you’re ignorantly defending are BS. Would you like their credentials? Would you like to compare those credentials to the “experts” the state used to convict Willingham? You’re barking up the wrong tree trying to pretend these guys can’t run circles around the incompetent boobs who screwed up this investigation, and, again, you can’t point to anyone remotely comparable (or even anyone not paid by the state of Texas) willing to stand by the evidence in this case. You’re simply being intellectually dishonest, and it’s a shameful display. If you want to defend the death penalty, please do so with a modicum of honesty.
March 8, 2010, 8:11 pmJR says:
Considering that Willingham’s ex-wife testified against him (after changing her initial story to police, but that’s another matter), I think telling her to “burn in hell” is a response that we could expect from anyone, innocent or guilty. The protestation of his innocence is a bit more of a salient detail than cussing out his ex, don’t you think?
March 8, 2010, 8:13 pmSkeptical Juror says:
Since 1976, there have been 746 executions in this country, excluding Texas. During that time, 127 people have been exonerated while on death row, excluding Texas. That’s 14.5% wrongfully convicted but spared before execution.
Since 1976, Texas has executed 450 people. During that time, only 12 people have been exonerated while on death row in Texas. That’s a mere 2.6% for Texas, compared to 14.5% for the remainder of the country.
Assuming Texas juries are no more wise or foolish than juries in the other forty-nine states, and assuming Texas lags only in exonerating people from death row, it’s easy to calculate that Texas has executed 55 innocent people since 1976.
That number is actually low, since it assumes the other 49 states exonerating all the factually innocent people on death row before executing them.
Maybe Cameron Todd Willingham was one of the 55. Argue that as you will. There is little doubt, however, that Hank Skinner is going to be number 56.
March 8, 2010, 8:37 pmjccamp says:
Looking at the Skinner case, there does seem to be significant evidence of guilt. However, there is also very little reason not to conduct DNA tests of all of the evidence in the case, bearing in mind that the intervening years make contamination and bacterial damage to the organic material possible, if not likely. Also bear in mind that certain DNA evidence is not conclusive as to guilt, and it is all contextual. For instance, the presence of semen from another donor does not rule out Skinner as the murderer. He may have witnessed his girlfriend in a compromising situation, and the 3rd party semen could actually be evidence of motive, not evidence of non-guilt. Something like DNA material under a victim’s fingernails would be pretty compelling though.
As for Willingham, it seems as though positions have hardened and no one is actually considering the facts as alleged or proven, only what the politics would dictate. I do find it telling that so many, knowing only a tiny fraction of the case, have substituted their view for that of a trial judge, trial counsel on both sides, a jury of Willingham’s peers, no less than four layers of appellate courts, and the like. If, as the OP says, new forensics may have resulted in reasonable doubt, a jury may have also heard rebuttal and chosen to disregard the defense arguments and convicted anyway. As a matter of law and a matter of fact, Willingham died a guilty man, convicted of multiple murders. Anything else is simply speculation since no evidence exists that exonerates Willingham. There are some new interpretations of the evidence used to convict Willingham, but those interpretations do not exonerate Willingham, they merely fail to convict him. They are likewise subject to some challenge, and do not stand uncontested. This (Willingham’s guilt) would still have been a jury question, and no one has demonstrated that the jury would have found him not guilty, even if it were able to consider the new forensics evidence.
But, as I said, it’s all speculation, and substitutes our judgements and preconceived notions for the judgements of the trial court.
March 8, 2010, 9:19 pmSkeptical Juror says:
“I do find it telling that so many, knowing only a tiny fraction of the case, have substituted their view for that of a trial judge, trial counsel on both sides, a jury of Willingham’s peers, no less than four layers of appellate courts, and the like.”
The judge is supposedly neutral. His view does not matter. Nor does the view of any attorney. They are advocates for one side or the other. Appellate courts do not generally rule on the evidence, only on the process. What is left is the jury.
I have served on four felony trials. I helped send one man to prison for murder, and saved another after an eight-day deliberation. I have seen more of the jury room than most. I know that juries are fallible. Since the advent of DNA testing, we all know juries are fallible.
If our predecessors had merely dismissed the possibility of wrongful conviction simply because the jury had spoken, there would have been 139 fewer people freed from death row.
March 8, 2010, 9:36 pmEricPWJohnson says:
JR
He’s not a physicist, he’s not a chemical specialist – he’s a mechanical engineer whose experience is in plumbing design fire suppression systems for a firm that has been sued for their suppression modeling system that has left some building vulnerable
both society’s of fire prevention and fire inspectors have disagreed with his findings
March 8, 2010, 9:39 pmbyomtov says:
Chris Travers,
Yes. If the now-discredited “expert opinion” was a factor in the conviction. What’s the alternative?
“Well we know that this guy was convicted on the basis of a bunch of nonsense, but so what? Let him rot.”
Does that sound right to you?
March 8, 2010, 9:45 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Strange that nobody but the snitch — who I reiterate, was not his roommate, cellmate, bunk mate, or whatever other mate you want to claim — testified to this confession, if it was “overheard.”
This is gibberish. I don’t know what it means to say that they “weighed” his testimony. They were not assessing the truth of the alleged expert testimony — not that they would have been qualified to do so, of course, not being engineers themselves. They didn’t know that when Vasquez testified that the fire had to be deliberately set because of the burn patterns, that he was pulling it out of his rear end, that there was no scientific basis for his claims.
Ah. I was under the impression that when you said “confession,” you meant that he admitted he did it. You meant a statement where he didn’t admit doing anything, but for some reason you call it a “confession.”
And now we’re into the ‘making stuff up’ phase of the debate. Though I’m not clear why a $5,000 insurance policy is supposed to be suspicious anyway.
March 8, 2010, 9:48 pmbyomtov says:
JCcamp,
As a matter of law and a matter of fact, Willingham died a guilty man, convicted of multiple murders. Anything else is simply speculation since no evidence exists that exonerates Willingham.
As a matter of law, perhaps. As a matter of fact, no. As a human sacrifice to Rick Perry’s political ambitions, and consequently a disgrace to the people of Texas, definitely.
March 8, 2010, 9:49 pmPintler says:
Those words sure sound like a defense atty trying to throw some doubt on the wall, not a prosecutor building a solid case.
March 8, 2010, 9:50 pmEricPWJohnson says:
David
All insurance policies taken out within a few weeks of a decedents death are automatically suspicious
Also, in the case of Dr Beyler who’s claims that Walmart sold a defective lamp that exploded and caused the fire that killed two stoned UT Professors there is this gem:
Thus endeth any credibility of Dr raig Beyler – who was working on this case for the plaintiffs on or about the time he wrote his mistake laden paper on the Willingham fire.
Opps! I’m sorry facts, court documents do get in the way of emotionalisms, for this I do apologize!
March 8, 2010, 10:09 pmEricPWJohnson says:
More gems about dr Beyler from official court documents
In other words – Dr Beyler made stuff up
March 8, 2010, 10:20 pmEricPWJohnson says:
this is typical about the Willingham report Dr Beyler makes statements but provides nothing, here again the same modus in the Merrill vs Walmart, where now Beyler is the expert that the jury relied on
Like the fact in the Willingham case that Willinghams account of his actions did not match the fire scene nor his own injuries
Like the fact that the threshold was an alloy not steel
Like the fact that the wood tested positive for an accelerant
Like the fact that the children died slowly
and so on and so forth
March 8, 2010, 10:24 pmraoul says:
EricPWJohnson: you have been debunked. Little by little the facts you wrote have been easily explained. Talking to a grave on sorrow is a “confession” like you wrote? Tattoos? And you wrote a lot about the life insurance- is true that it was $6,000.00? If these post were a court of law you would have lost since you develop no credibility when you espoused your facts. Word to the wise, next time present the full evidence including negative facts which you can try to explain. Until then, you will be known as hack.
March 8, 2010, 10:30 pmLN says:
After reading this thread, I’ve learned about a fundamental unfairness in our legal system. The prosecutor is supposed to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the defense does not have to prove innocence to the same standard. Weird. Does anyone know why that is? Was our legal system designed by terrorists?
jccamp, you forgot to mention that Willingham is dead, so it’s not like we can do anything to bring him back.
March 8, 2010, 10:32 pmraoul says:
Well LN, the burden must be carried by one party, we couldn’t well have both sides try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, could we? The standards of proof can change for different trials, but in this country, due to the powers of the state and the fact that most prefer to set a few criminals free than incarcerate innocent people, the criminals standards are part of due process which include “beyond a reasonable doubt”, one can imagine how many innocent people would be in jail today with a preponderance of the evidence standard.
March 8, 2010, 10:57 pmjccamp says:
Pintler –
Skinner has already been convicted. I was suggesting that further DNA testing may not be the magic fix that everyone seems to think it is. DNA evidence is subject to challenge, to interpretation, to context and significance, as any other evidence. Unless the sought DNA tests – if done – conclusively indicate actual non-guilt of Skinner, his conviction remains. Ambiguous results accomplish nothing and provide nothing of value (save fodder for discussion on law blogs perhaps). Which is probably why the state opposed (opposes?) further testing, that is, it is unlikely to resolve any issues.
byomtov -
“now-discredited “expert opinion” actually applies to both sides of the scientific argument. Beyler is pretty thoroughly discredited himself. There is apparently still professional opinion that the fire was set, not accidental. Given that there are two sides to the scientific argument, a jury would have been free to reject one and accept the other. You are likewise free to do so, but to ascribe evil motives to those who disagree with you says much about your own logic.
Skeptical Juror -
“The judge is supposedly neutral. His view does not matter.”
His view matters very much, as he is the arbiter of fairness in the process. He decides what is heard by the trier of fact and what is excluded. He/she is certainly a subtle influence on the course of a trial, and I suspect that not many verdicts are outside what the trial judge could accept as within a reasonable verdict, given the facts presented.
“Nor does the view of any attorney.”
Actually, Willingham’s own attorney has expressed the opinion that Willingham was guilty, and was a completely evil person or words of similar meaning. The prosecutor says the same thing.
“I helped send one man to prison for murder…”
And you did so only after some tough deliberation, I’m sure. Why are you so certain, that in this instance, another jury failed to do the same? Especially when you are not privy to the same facts as they when making your determination. I think that arrogant. Dozens of hours of testimony and jury deliberation are all negated by one article in a NY glossy, citing one now discredited pseudo-scientific study of the case evidence, and then repeated by any number of anti-capital punishment advocates.
March 8, 2010, 11:06 pmraoul says:
JCAMP: Only a troglodyte would not agree that the fire forensic science used in the trial was outdated. BTW: Spectral evidence has not been allowed for a few centuries.
March 8, 2010, 11:28 pmJohn Herbison says:
The defendant is not required to prove anything. It is the government that is asking that something be done to remedy an offense against society–to take life or liberty. Whether the suit being tried is criminal or civil, courts exist for the benefit of plaintiffs–defendants have no need of them.
A criminal trial is a test of the government’s evidence. Before the government may inject toxic chemicals into someone’s veins, cook him to death like a slab of bacon or lock him in a cage like a wild animal, that government had best have some pretty compelling evidence that a crime has been committed and that the person on trial is the one who committed it.
To kill or imprison an innocent person is generally regarded by civilized society as a graver wrong than for a guilty person to escape punishment. Hence, the (theoretical) requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (Theoretical because no one with experience in the criminal justice system pretends that that standard is in fact applied more often than occasionally)
March 8, 2010, 11:31 pmbyomtov says:
jccamp,
If you read my comment about “now-discredited expert opinion” you will see that I was speaking in general, and not about the Willingham case per se.
As to ascribing evil motives, well, I’ve done nothing but use common sense in ascribing evil motives to Rick Perry, so I think the only thing that says about my logic is that it’s pretty reasonable.
March 8, 2010, 11:56 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Speaking of “making stuff up,” the quote you provide is not from “official court documents,” whatever that dishonest phrase means; that’s from an appellate brief by Walmart. In other words, the opposing party in a case is challenging a witness’s testimony. Which says nothing about whether that testimony is reliable or accurate; it certainly doesn’t say that he “made stuff up.”
March 9, 2010, 12:33 amEricPWJohnson says:
David
Yes he made up a hypothetical situation that didnt exist from a lamp that wasnt at the crime scene
Yes, that is the very definition of making stuff up
March 9, 2010, 1:13 amDavid Schwartz says:
A “confession” obtained using a technique that would induce anyone to say anything, true or not. Effectively, the police told him that they had proof that he had done so, and so he *concluded* that therefore he must have done so. A conclusion drawn from erroneous facts is not a confession. It is simply an assertion that a particular conclusion flows from a particular set of presented facts.
Again, if I tell you that I have witnesses and photos proving conclusively that you were at a gas station on November 13, 1995, you will then “confess” that you must have been at a gas station on November 13, 1995.
How is this a “confession”? This is equally consistent with both criminal guilt and survivor’s guilt. If you escaped a fire that killed your daughter, you might well tell her that she wasn’t the one that was supposed to die, meaning that you should have died before her.
March 9, 2010, 10:05 amzuch says:
[Assuming argunendo this is an accurate account] He’s a bit angry at his ex-wife?!?!? Wonder why that would have occured….
Cheers,
March 9, 2010, 1:31 pmjccamp says:
raoul –
“Only a troglodyte would not agree that the fire forensic science used in the trial was outdated.”
That the science presented at trial may have been outdated does not, per se, prove the conclusions reached thereby are faulty. That requires a second set of separate scientific questions and answers, asserting updated science would not have reached the same basis for the fire. Breyer’s study has been fairly discredited in its conclusions, and some fire investigation professionals maintain the original conclusions are valid, albeit reached by science other than the original processes presented at trial.
For instance, Breyer finds that an electrical fire (in an overhead fan) was the original source of ignition, and concludes that the fire was accidental. There was testimony at the trial that the electricity had been turned off (at the meter) for non-payment of electric bills, and that further, no evidence or signs of an overhead fan or overhead wiring was discovered. In addition, Breyer also glosses over or ignores those indications consistent with multiple points of ignition or consistent with the presence of accelerants, since either of those would of necessity invalidate that finding of accidental origin.
So, arguing that the science at the trial was outdated is not the same as arguing that the defendant did not set the fire, which is really the question. Breyer’s study and a magazine article are hardly credible evidence of Willingham’s innocence. A jury found Willingham guilty. That is a great hurdle to overcome when trying to argue against guilt. Thus far, I don’t see anything close to meeting that burden.
byomtov –
I don’t know much at all about the Texas governor, but I find it hard to credit that he would knowingly send an innocent person to an unjustified execution for political ends. Which is what I took your meaning to be. If I misunderstood, then I apologize. If, on the other hand, I understood all too well, then I fail to comprehend why you would defend Willingham so vehemently, when there is some weight of evidence aside from the fire forensics, while at the same time, you would be so quick to condemn the governor for deliberate murder on the flimsiest of evidence.
March 9, 2010, 2:12 pmChris Travers says:
This is to my mind the least interesting issue here. The fact is that arson investigations were bogus for quite a while. Whether or not Willingham is guilty, you can’t tell me that a substantial percentage of arson-murder convicts are not innocent.
March 9, 2010, 2:22 pmJustin Levine says:
JR and Zuch –
None of your responses address the fact that the New Yorker article deliberately omitted facts about Willingham’s last words for the express purpose of trying to paint a slanted picture of him in the reader’s mind.
The problem is that anti-death penalty activists are willing to lie and are also too willing to believe the lies of others in order to advance their agenda, which the abolition of the death penalty REGARDLESS of the question of guilt. Again – no rational person wants to see an innocent man executed.
But people remember cases like Roger Coleman who was guilty of murder, and yet had people insisting he was innocent and got himself on the cover of Time Magazine because they claimed he was likely innocent.
Remember this?
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19920518,00.html
But oops! He was guilty after all –
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201210.html
Coleman’s supporters were just as passionate for his “innocence” as Willingham’s are now.
This debate is clouded by such past events. And with none of us having access to the full trial transcript to examine the entire body of evidence here, it seems pointless to just keep going around in circles.
March 9, 2010, 2:23 pmChris Travers says:
With due respect….
I don’t think incompetence is the issue here. The fact is that the science changed. the FM’s are not in charge of testing scientific hypotheses, but instead are in charge of applying them. Saying this is an issue of competence or lack thereof on that point entirely ducks the bigger issue: there are a lot of people who are in jail over arsons they didn’t commit.
Willingham is dead. At this point it doesn’t really matter whether he really did what he was accused of. We should be more concerned about the people in jail today convicted in large part of crimes based on forensics that has later been discredited.
March 9, 2010, 2:29 pmChris Travers says:
I don’t see this as a death penalty concern because it would be no less tragic and no less an injustice if an innocent person is sent to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The issue of arson murder convictions based on forensic evidence we no longer accept is a major issue and it reaches well beyond the Willingham case.
March 9, 2010, 2:33 pmJR says:
Chris,
With the same respect, the fact is that by the time Willingham was convicted the methods in use by the investigators were known to be faulty, and Vasquez was making claims about his record of finding arson at fire scenes that can only be described as outlandish (the ratio of set fires to accidental ones that he claimed to find would be akin to a doctor who’d spent 20 years in a busy hospital ICU saying that almost every patient he ever had die was a murder victim: It’s theoretically possible that such a freak occurrence would happen, but it’s so unlikely that the doctor’s competence to testify would have to be considered suspect at best.)
In cases like Ernest Willis’s, I think the changes in fire science were more critical to the erroneous verdict than in Willingham’s. I don’t disagree that a substitution of folklore for forensics contributed to Willingham’s railroading, but the unprofessional and incompetent conduct of Vasquez was, to my mind (and according to the Beyler report) similarly appalling. But you are absolutely correct that the tectonic shifts in fire science over the last 15-20 years have been critical in avoiding other wrongful convictions and false determinations of arson, and that is where we need to predominately focus if we want to fix the problems plaguing forensic testimony–getting the science right before the trial is job number 1 for any scientist (and their primary ethical obligation).
March 9, 2010, 3:16 pmJR says:
One other point:
For many of us, I think it matters a great deal. Justice Scalia once mocked those of us who think the death penalty is wrong by claiming no evidence existed of an innocent person being executed in the modern era. This case is a direct rebuttal to that presumption, which I believe is the reason why so many people on this thread and elsewhere seem determined to ignore the facts of the case in order to continue arguing that the system has worked as it should (to the point of surrendering the “reasonable doubt” standard entirely and substituting some variant of “close enough for government work” as the new bar for prosecutors to meet before sending someone to die).
March 9, 2010, 3:20 pmJR says:
At best, you have an argument to be skeptical and further investigate the Grann article, not to dismiss it entirely: you don’t have evidence of him lying, but omitting a fact that, frankly, adds nothing to either side’s argument (I know of nobody who claims that Willingham was a good person, on either side–merely that he wasn’t guilty of the crime for which he was executed).
Regardless, if you’re unable to set aside that particular prejudice of yours over that particular article, you might feel comforted to know that what Grann wrote was actually pretty much a re-tread of a 2004 article that Maurice Possley wrote in the Chicago Tribune. Feel free to read it here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0412090169dec09,0,1173806.story
I eagerly await the quibbling complaint that you will use to justify ignoring this article as well. :)
March 9, 2010, 3:28 pmbyomtov says:
jccamp,
Perry deliberately took steps to prevent the evidence against Willingham from being seriously and usefully re-evaluated by independent experts. Why did he do that? I have not seen any innocent explanation that is not utter BS. It’s hard even to imagine what one might be.
Believe what you like. Willingham is dead. Texas justice is infallible. Fine.
March 9, 2010, 10:57 pmKevin P. says:
This brown-skinned immigrant to Texas suspects that you were one of the white-guilt liberals common here in Austin, always ashamed to admit that you are from Texas.
March 11, 2010, 12:22 am