The innocent man we executed

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed by the State of Texas in 2004. He was accused of killing his three daughters by an act of arson. A new report shows that the scientific evidence used to convict him was false. The evidence that was shown to prove that the fire was arson was wholly consistant with an accidental fire. So not only was Willingham not guilty of the crime, there was no crime at all.

Chicago Tribune Article

This is why we must eliminate the death penalty. An innocent man is now the fourth victim of a tragic fire, but this is the victim we killed.

The erroneous conviction was not the result of malice or conspiracy, but the result of well meaning people without adequate training, who made honest mistakes. The arson investigators followed their training. Their training hadn't kept up with science.

 If Cameron Todd Willingham received life imprisonment, he'd be trying to rebuild his life now. But Cameron Todd Willingham is now dead. And we are all responsible.

•  so

  so an accidential fire killed his family, and then incompetent prosecutors and fire investigators basically killed him.  usa usa usa......  sob

  by pissedpatriot on Tue May 02, 2006 at 10:48:28 AM PDT

•  Another example of the great American sickness:

  the conviction that the solution to everything is violence - executions, killings, bombings...

  by Lepanto on Tue May 02, 2006 at 10:55:55 AM PDT

•  That's hardly proof of innocence.

  n/t

  by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 10:58:56 AM PDT

  •  Well...

    When there isn't any proof that there was an actual crime, it's pretty hard for their to be proof of guilt.

    by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:01:28 AM PDT

  •  Are you kidding?

    He was charged with starting a fire that killed his family. Evidence now shows that it was an accident! Accident = he didn't start fire = he's innocent.

    by Wbythebay on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:04:14 AM PDT

    •  What's he's saying is

      That all the evidence says is that the fire could have been accidental as well, not that it definitively WAS accidental.

      by VirginiaBelle on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:06:46 AM PDT

      •  Didn't say 'could have been,'

        report said "The evidence that was shown to prove that the fire was arson was wholly consistant with an accidental fire."
        Wholly consistant [sic]

        by Wbythebay on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:11:30 AM PDT

        •  'Wholly consistent with'

          one does not mean "not consistent with" another.

          For instance some vaginal bruising can be  can be "wholly consistent" with rough sex or "wholly consistent" with rape.

          by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:14:11 AM PDT

          •  There is no evidence of a crime.

            The arson report singled out the testimony at Willingham's trial of Manuel Vasquez, a deputy Texas state fire marshal, who said he found numerous indicators in the debris that he interpreted as evidence Willingham intentionally set the fire.

            "Each and every one of the 'indicators' listed by Mr. Vasquez means absolutely nothing...," the report states.

            by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:16:06 AM PDT

            •  Why are you believing the report

              and not the Fire Marshall?  I don't know enough to form conclusions but to simply say "oh, this new report said so, so that's how it is" is being a little gullible, no?

              by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:19:08 AM PDT

              •  Please read the article...

                Four highly respected arson experts reviewed the case and made the report.

                The deputy fire Marshal who testified had only "on the job" training.

                Scientific testing has disproved that the types of evidence used to show it was arson are indicative of arson.

                Why are you so determined not to believe a grave injustice has been done in this case?

                by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:24:53 AM PDT

                •  Because 1 report does not

                  necessarily sway me, especially when at the end of the day, it is not really hard science, but mostly opinion testimony based on certain facts that are open to interpretation.  It's not as hardcore evidence as say DNA or photo, or whatever.  It's an opinion.  Many years after the fact.  has to be taken with a grain of salt.  

                  by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:27:39 AM PDT

                  •  Opinion testimony

                    But opinion testimony by an inadeqautely trained investigator is enough to kill?

                    by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:29:22 AM PDT

                    •  That's a different question

                      And again, I am not familiar with the facts of the case to say that this was the only evidence out there.

                      The question of whether there was enough evidence for the death penalty is somewhat different than the question of guilt or innocence, don't you agree?

                      by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:31:10 AM PDT

                      •  The death penalty

                        And the application of the death penalty makes the question of guilt or innocennce a moot point now.

                        That's the problem.

                        by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:34:46 AM PDT

                        •  But in the diary you proclaimed the man's

                          innocence.  And I am pointing out that yuo don't really have much support for that claim.

                          by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:39:46 AM PDT

                          •  Only if you're blind

                            If there is no crime, there is no guilt.

                            There is NO credible evidence of a crime.

                            by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:42:26 AM PDT

                            •  Again, so says you

                              based on an opinion formed many years after the fact.  that is not really bullet-proof evidence if you ask me.

                              by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:48:42 AM PDT

                              •  What would be?

                                If the complete lack of evidence that there was a crime at all isn't good enough for you, what would be?

                                by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:50:13 AM PDT

                                •  Complete lack of evidence may be

                                  enough.  But an OPINION that there is lack of evidence is not enough.

                                  by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:55:03 AM PDT

                                  •  look,

                                    If it lets you sleep better at night to live in the fantasy that we never execute the innocent, fine, but that just isn't the real world we live in.

                                    by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:03:30 PM PDT

                                    •  The death penalty opponents have been

                                      hunting for a long time for a case where it could be shown that an innocent man has been executed.  So far that has not happened.  This MAY be that case, but so far the evidence that it is, is just not there.

                                      by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:10:19 PM PDT

                                •  Hell, even the Trib article uses the word

                                  MAYBE.  Even the people who compiled the report say MAYBE.  But you are absolutely positively sure that there is NO EVIDENCE.  

                                  by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:58:55 AM PDT

                          •  'innocent unless proven guilty'

                            and the article shows that guilt was not proved.

                            Therefore, by definition, the person is innocent, albeit maybe not exonerated.

                            by onanyes on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:12:40 PM PDT

                            •  Errr... he was proven guilty

                              Now there are questions about the reliability of the evidence.  that does not mean that he is innocent.

                              Convictions are not set aside simply because someone throws doubts on the proof at trial.  These doubts do not automatically mean that te evidence at trial must be disregarded.

                              by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:23:36 PM PDT

                              •  if he were to have a new trial

                                He would be found "innocent" because his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

                                That doesn't mean that the jury might not convict anyway.

                                by onanyes on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:05:45 PM PDT

                                •  Only if he could show he is entitled

                                  to a new trial in the first place.

                                  by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:28:21 PM PDT

                                  •  If only..

                                    If only the prosecuter had looked at the new evidence and had the courage to admit he was wrong and dropped the charges, rather than hanging on to an unjust conviction.

                                    by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:49:27 PM PDT

                                    •  Technically, once a conviction

                                      is in place, teh prosecution can't "drop the charges."  It could choose not to oppose or even support a motion for a new trial, but even then there is no guarantee that it will be granted, because the standard for new trial must still be satisfied.

                                      by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:54:15 PM PDT

                                      •  I think the point here

                                        is that, on moral grounds, this person was convicted and put to death even though, after the fact, there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

                                        That to me, is unjust, even if it might be "legal" (I admit that I don't know law).

                                        by onanyes on Tue May 02, 2006 at 02:12:39 PM PDT

                •  this is what drgshgsksgh does

                  100% contrarian, no matter what's up

                  by Cedwyn on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:28:59 AM PDT

                  •  Yep, get a life drg!

                    Hijacker, troublemaker, borderline troll.

                    by Wbythebay on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:38:15 AM PDT

  •  That's true.

    But if that was the extent of the evidence used to convict him, then it means there was no proof of his guilt either.

    (PS: Don't know anything about the facts of this case, I'm just going on what was posted in the diary).

    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:04:26 AM PDT

    •  The facts of the case

      The Trib did a Longer article right after he was executed back in Dec Of 04' Which I diaried and archieved here

      Here were the findings of the Experts the Trib consulted:

      "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."

      Ryland, chief of the Effie Fire Department and a former fire instructor at Louisiana State University, said that, in his workshop, he tried to re-create the conditions the original fire investigators described. When he could not, he said, it "made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation. ... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea--at least not scientifically--if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."

      Now Compare to the "arson investigator" the Prosecution used:

      The fire tells a story," Vasquez testified. "I am just the interpreter. I am looking at the fire, and I am interpreting the fire. That is what I know. That is what I do best. And the fire does not lie. It tells me the truth."

      Vasquez testified that of the 1,200 to 1,500 fires he had investigated, nearly all had been arson, and he had never been wrong.

      Except Ol' "never Wrong" was glaringly and obviously wrong in this case:

      "All four consultants said Vasquez made serious errors in his testimony. For example, when he said an accelerant must have been used to set the fire because wood could not burn hot enough to melt an aluminum threshold, he was wrong. It can."

      There's more but it will sicken you.  Even after respected Fire scientist presented a report proving that in light of what we now know, EVERY conclusion of the Arson investigator was wrong, the TX Appeals Court refused to grant a stay of execution because the prosecution produced an unsupported affidavit by inmate's ex-wife's, brother saying that the Defendant had confessed to his wife during a visit. (for  those of you with a modicum of legal knowledge that would be TRIPLE  hearsay

      by Magorn on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:32:44 AM PDT

  •  But the state ...

    certainly did not meet the burden of proof as to his guilt. Is that how you want it to be?

    The man went to his death tearfully proclaiming his innocence. What a depressing story, and what a depressing reaction you have to it.

    by Inky on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:05:17 AM PDT

    •  So did this Virginia

      man.

      But DNA tests proved him guilty despite his protestations.

      Look, I am not saying that the guy in question was not innocent.  I am not familiar with the case.  but to flatly say that he is because tests "are wholly consistent" with accidental fire is strectching it a bit.

      by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:17:07 AM PDT

      •  Link

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:17:22 AM PDT

  •  Our system of justice ...

    doesn't prove innocence. It is guilt that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Even a guilty person can go free if the evidence doesn't meet the standards. In this case the evidence was flawed and a person who may have been aquitted due to lack of evidence was executed.

    by fritzrth on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:07:50 AM PDT

    •  Well, actually it does

      Once you are convicted by the jury in a trial, the burden now shifts to you if you want to show that the jury made a mistake.

      by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:20:30 AM PDT

      •  To a point ...

        In most cases, a person must show a reason to appeal, but in death penalty cases, appeals are automatic. Once the appeal has begun, it is still up to the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond that a defendant doesn't have to show that the jury made a mistake, just that there is new evidence or that the prosecution made enough errors to allow an appeal. As far as guilt is concerned, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

        by fritzrth on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:54:15 AM PDT

        •  Not quite

          On appeal, the government must just defend the verdict as reasonable.  The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is no longer applicable.  Especially since appeals generally do not deal with questions of fact, but rather questions of law.

          In any event, motion for a new trial is not an appeal.  It is a motion at the trial court.  And there are pretty high standards to get a new trial granted.

          by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:25:38 PM PDT

  •  Fortunately, we don't HAVE to prove innocence.

    The government has to prove guilt.

    by perro amarillo on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:08:59 AM PDT

    •  They did. At trial

      If you are challenging that conclusion, you now must prove innocence.

      by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:21:00 AM PDT

      •  Well, let's get him a new trial then...

        Oops, he's dead. Too late.

        by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:26:14 AM PDT

        •  This may not even be enough to get a new trial

          even if one were possible.  It just isn't new evidence.  it is an opinion. An expert opinion to be sure, but still an opinion.

          by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:28:52 AM PDT

          •  Wrong

            In addition to the Willingham case, the report examined the arson prosecution of Ernest Ray Willis, who was charged with the arson-murders of two women in Iraan, Texas, on June 11, 1986.

            In 2004—a few months after Willingham was executed—Willis, who was facing the death penalty in a retrial of his case, was released and the case dismissed after arson experts concluded there was no evidence the fire was intentionally set.

            by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:30:34 AM PDT

            •  So?

              There are different standards for NEW TRIAL and dismissing the charges.  It seems that Mr. Willis already had a retrial granted.  The expert opinion was just an added bonus.  Getting a new trial granted simply based on a new expert opinion is not all that common and is not all that likely.

              by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:33:03 AM PDT

      •  Nope. Must prove wrongful conviction.

        by perro amarillo on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:37:49 AM PDT

        •  Which you do how?

          Either by showing that the trial suffered from some constitutional defect (e.g., evidence admittedthat shouldn't have been or vice versa), or showing actual innocence.

          by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:41:08 AM PDT

          •  Short of a bulletproof alibi, how do you do that?

            by perro amarillo on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:11:03 PM PDT

            •  For instance DNA evidence

              Confession by someone else, testimony by a victim that he misIded you, etc.  there are many ways of doing this, none are easy.  Nonethelss, the burden is with the convict.

              by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:21:53 PM PDT

      •  No, you don't have to prove innocence.

        The burden of proof is still on the prosecution to prove guilt.

        by fritzrth on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:55:26 AM PDT

        •  And they did... At trial

          Once the trial is over, if you want to challenge the convinction, the burden is on you.

          by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:59:54 AM PDT

          •  Not precisely correct

            You have a burden of production of evidence shows that  either:

            a) a mistake of law was made, or a judge abused his judicial discretion by a procedural ruling (In this case it would have been possible here to argue that based on Frye and Daubert that the arson report should not have been admitted)

            b) new evidence has been uncovered that was not available at trial, and that based on that new evidence, no reasonable juror could find Proof Beyond a reasonable doubt.

            c) Evidence that  provides clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence

            by Magorn on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:45:05 PM PDT

            •  Right

              That's sort of what I was saying.

              But the burnden is still on the convict to show that "no reasonable juror could find Proof Beyond a reasonable doubt" or that there is "clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence,"  or that the judge committed an error.

              by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:51:21 PM PDT

              •  Which in legal parlance

                Is a Burden of Production.  Which is to say that it is up to you to produce sufficent evidence to back up your assertions.  The Burden of Proof (which is to say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) Stays with the prosecutor always even on appeal.

                by Magorn on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:17:37 PM PDT

  •  Read this and then tell me what you think

    this is one of the very first diaries I ever put on Dkos back in December of '04 (right at the beggining of my coming out as a blogger and a liberal)  and it was based on a longer Trib article about this same man.

    No, none of it proves he's innocent, but that's not the way our system works.  ESPECIALLY in death peanlty cases it is the job of the prosecution to prove a man guilty of what he's accused of.   And escpeically in this case, which more of less hinges on the forensic evidence, the errors are so egregious that there is no questions that what was presented in court was NOT "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".  And when that cannot be proven, you are, by definition in our legal system, an innocent man.

    The Trib has saved more than a few Lives by keeping a laser beam focus on this issue of the wrongly convicted (their series on Ill Death Row was the reason the governor suspended the death penalty in Illinois).  It's an example of what the Press can and Should do with their power.

    by Magorn on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:14:31 AM PDT

  •  Here is an outside link to the trib piece.

    http://www.truthinjustice.org/...

    by Wayne Gregory on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:21:59 AM PDT

•  Recommended

  That is really horrible.

  by wetzel on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:04:09 AM PDT

•  The government has a hammer

  and every problem looks like a nail.  Ever notice that the pro lifers are for the dath penalty?

  by trashablanca on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:06:41 AM PDT

  •  They're not really very pro-life, are they?

    What's that line:
    They love the fetus but hate the adult. . .

    by Wbythebay on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:13:41 AM PDT

    •  The don't wait for the adult

      As soon as a fetus becomes a being in its own right, their interest is gone.  No attention paid as to whether the former fetus has the basics of survival:  safety, nurturing and nourishment.  Once its out of the womb, the family and ex-fetus are totally on their own.

      by sj on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:37:50 PM PDT

      •  Thanks, that's more accurate;

        Love the fetus, hate the baby. So sadly true. If they were really pro-life, they'd be promoting adoptions, or even adopting themselves. And setting up programs to support the pregnant women. Such blatant hypocrisy!!

        by Wbythebay on Tue May 02, 2006 at 03:03:55 PM PDT

  •  I said that to my wife

    about 4 days ago that it seems to me that some of these pro-life people are all for the death penalty.

    If by chance he didn’t kill his kids then by our own laws we did nothing more then murder him. How many murders must we commit before we realize that we make mistakes.

    About 3 years ago my wife and I were talking about the death penalty, something in the last 10 years we have been together had never talked about. I explained to her I was against it, that if some one killed you or our son I would want to strangle the life out of that person, but what if I was wrong and strangled the wrong person then I would have to do it again and again till I got the right person. The point being that none of us no matter how much we think we are right that at times we kill the wrong person. That what if the person we killed if still alive was the person who by chance would have been the person to save your life in an accident we would never really know. As much as I would want to snap the neck of the person that killed or hurt one of my kids or my wife when do we evolve enough to know that killing someone proves that killing is wrong?

    by My Voice on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:01:34 PM PDT

•  This information was KNOWN at the time.

  See the diary on this by Magorn.

  It was known before his execution that the original analysis was incorrect, but the prosecution argued that there was strictly speaking no new evidence and actually came up wiith a phony story about a confession at the last minute. He didn't get a stay and was put to death despite the fact that it was by then quite public information that his conviction was erroneous.

  It's hard to contain one's emotions when writing about this.

  I highly recommend Magorn's account.  Thank you for bringing up this new information. It's important that as many people hear about this story as possible.

  by jem6x on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:34:04 AM PDT

  •  I don't diary often..

    ..but the story just turned my stomach. The man loses his three kids in a tragic accident, and is killed for it. Truly horrible.

    by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:38:34 AM PDT

    •  Some days it's really hard

      to believe in God, even for those of us who normally do. This story has that effect on me.

      by jem6x on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:51:18 AM PDT

      •  Feeling it too.

        I know exactly what you mean. I'm trying to find some solace in the thought that he's been reunited with his kids in a better place, but it's awful hard.

        by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:54:17 AM PDT

•  Wonder whether

  any of the (so-called) White House Press Corps will show any Stepehn Colbert courage and ask Bush about Texas executions of innocent people ... since he said he had full confidence that this did not occur.

  by besieged by bush on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:41:56 AM PDT

  •  Don't get me started on Bush

    This is a little compilation I put together on his death-row record as Governor after W. proudly proclaimed in the Schaivo case that it is better to "err on the side of life"

    some highlights:

    Bush approved the execution of Odell Barnes, whose court-appointed lawyers failed to interview witnesses who might have helped their client, and conducted no scientific investigation of blood and semen evidence the state said linked Barnes to the crime

    Bush signed off on the execution of Canadian Joseph Stanley Faulder, convicted of murdering a wealthy oil heiress, despite the fact that the prosecutor had been hired and paid for by the victim's family , and that the state had withheld evidence that its principal witness was paid more than $10,000 to testify against Faulder.

    The state's chief psychiatric witness, whose testimony was essential to securing a death sentence, was later expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for presenting unprofessional testimony in Texas death penalty cases.

    Bush also did not pardon Betty Lou Beets, a 62-year-old grandmother. Beets was eligible for a death sentence under Texas law ...basedon ..the e state's claim that she killed her husband in order to recover his insurance and pension
    benefits. Beets' attorney, E. Ray Andrews (who later served a three-year federal prison sentence, never told the jury that Beets didn't even know about the
    insurance policy on her husband at the time he was murdered.

    In 1997, Bush approved the execution of David Spence for the grisly stabbing deaths of three teenagers, despite evidence that Spence may have been framed by
    police and the lack of physical evidence linking him to the crime.

    and there are a half dozen more in the article if for some reason your outrage meter was lagging today...

    by Magorn on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:35:45 PM PDT

•  Never assume the authorities are right

  or telling the truth.

  Paul House was convicted of murdering his neighbor in 1985. He was found guilty after a jury was told that the semen on the body of his neighbor matched his blood type. The semen's DNA, however, matched her husband's (this was before routine DNA testing). The jurors were not told that.

  A 15-judge US Court of Appeals panel in Cincinnati voted 8-7 not to reopen the case or free House, despite six witnesses who implicated the husband. Two even said the husband had confessed while he was drunk.

  The eight judges appointed by a Republican president voted to keep House on Death Row. Six of the seven appointed by a Democrat wanted to free him; the seventh wanted a new trial.

  The case is now before the Supreme Court. I haven't seen a decision.

  But this is an excellent example of two things: how flawed our death penalty system is and what a crock of shit the Republican culture of life is.

  by AtlantaJan on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:38:23 PM PDT