"THE WILLINGHAM CASE APPEARS TO BE OUR WORST NIGHTMARE COME TRUE; A MAN WHO MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN INNOCENT, HAS BEEN PUT TO DEATH. THIS CASE REQUIRES THAT STATES AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY CAREFULLY EXAMINE THE ADJUDICATIVE SYSTEM THAT PERMITS THIS TO HAPPEN. BY THEIR OWN COUNT, THE INNOCENCE PROJECT’S ACTIVITIES HAVE RESULTED IN THE EXONERATION OF MORE THAN 240 CONVICTED PEOPLE. MORE THAN A DOZEN WERE ON DEATH ROW."
JAY SIEGEL; SCIENCEINSIDER;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: (Wikipedia); Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004), born in Carter County, Oklahoma, was sentenced to death by the state of Texas for murdering his three daughters—two year old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and one year old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham— by setting his house on fire. The fire occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. Lighter fluid was kept on the front porch of Willingham’s house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. It was alleged this fluid was deliberately poured to start the fire and that Willingham chose this entrance way so as to impede rescue attempts. The prosecution also used other arson theories that have since been brought into question. In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant claimed Willingham confessed that he set the fire to hide his wife's physical abuse of the girls, although the girls showed no other injuries besides those caused by the fire. Neighbors also testified that Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children. They allege he "crouched down" in his front yard and watched the house burn for a period of time without attempting to enter the home or go to neighbors for help or request they call firefighters. He claimed that he tried to go back into the house but it was "too hot". As firefighters arrived, however, he rushed towards the garage and pushed his car away from the burning building, requesting firefighters do the same rather than put out the fire. After the fire, Willingham showed no emotion at the death of his children and spent the next day sorting through the debris, laughing and playing music. He expressed anger after finding his dartboard burned in the fire. Firefighters and other witnesses found him suspicious of how he reacted during and after the fire. Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. After his conviction, he and his wife divorced. She later stated that she believed that Willingham was guilty. Prosecutors alleged this was part of a pattern of behavior intended to rid himself of his children. Willingham had a history of committing crimes, including burglary, grand larceny and car theft. There was also an incident when he beat his pregnant wife over the stomach with a telephone to induce a miscarriage. When asked if he had a final statement, Willingham said: "Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby." However, his final words were directed at his ex-wife, Stacy Willingham. He turned to her and said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch" several times while attempting to extend his middle finger in an obscene gesture. His ex-wife did not show any reaction to this. He was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Subsequent to that date, persistent questions have been raised as to the accuracy of the forensic evidence used in the conviction, specifically, whether it can be proven that an accelerant (such as the lighter fluid mentioned above) was used to start the fatal fire. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------September
ScienceInsider published this interview on September 15, 2009, under the heading: "Forensic Science on Trial: Part II," by Eli Kintisch,
"In Part I, ScienceInsider interviewed a fire investigator on the topic of arson and forensic science in the United States, an issue brought to the forefront by the controversial execution of Todd Willingham in Texas in 2004," the article containing the interview began.
"Now we conducted an email interview with a member of the landmark National Research Council panel which in February found "a tremendous need for the forensic science community to get better," it continued.
"Jay Siegel is the director of the Forensic and Investigative Sciences Program at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.
Q: How did the flaws laid out in the Willingham case reflect on larger issues about forensic science in the United States?
J.S.: First, it is necessary to distinguish what happened in the Willingham case from the practice of forensic science in the U.S. as explored by the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] Committee that looked at forensic science. The problems with the Willingham case arose from inadequate training and experience of the fire scene investigators. ... The issues that the NAS Committee dealt with concerned the status of laboratory forensic science rather than crime scene investigation. Although CSI should be more scientifically based and should fall within the purview of forensic science, it is generally considered to be part of the law enforcement process. Crime scene investigation training stresses observation and data collection but not critical thinking and scientific analysis. This is what leads to the tragic outcome in the Willingham case.
Q: What impact has the Innocence Project had on the issue?
J.S.: There is no doubt that the Innocence Project(s) around the country have had a major effect on law enforcement, forensic science and the judicial system. They have called attention to the frailties in our criminal justice system, especially with respect to the death penalty debate. The Willingham case appears to be our worst nightmare come true; a man who may very well have been innocent, has been put to death. This case requires that states and the Federal judiciary carefully examine the adjudicative system that permits this to happen. By their own count, the Innocence Project’s activities have resulted in the exoneration of more than 240 convicted people. More than a dozen were on death row.
Certainly the development of DNA typing has had a major effect on the efforts of the Innocence Project. Most of the exonerations have come about because of post-conviction DNA testing. The Innocence Project attorneys claim that a large percentage of these wrongful convictions came about in the first place because of improper analysis and/or testimony by forensic scientists. Although the magnitude of this contribution is hotly contested by elements of the forensic science community, it is part of the reason why the NAS Committee was convened to examine forensic science.
Q: If the Academies' recommendations had been in place might Willingham still be alive?
J.S.: It is possible. The NAS Committee did not devote much attention to crime scene investigation including fire investigation. It was more concerned with the overall infrastructure of forensic science and laboratory science practices. The Committee’s recommendations did call for much better funding of research, education and training in forensic science. There is little doubt that more of these activities would better inform the entire field of law enforcement including crime scene investigation, infusing it with a badly needed dose of science. This would, perforce, improve the quality of fire investigations and make the investigators’ conclusions more reliable.
Q: Since the NAS panel came out with its recommendations have any of them been picked up by policymakers?
J.S.: Not yet. There have been several hearings in the Congress, mainly in the Senate, on the findings of the NAS Committee on forensic science. There is lots of activity in the Congress that will determine the best ways to implement as many of the thirteen recommendations as are possible financially and politically. The chief benefit of the report thus far is that a robust debate has begun on forensic science in general and the recommendations in particular. Congress seems to be very serious about curing some of the most serious ills in forensic science and will hopefully provide badly needed funding to improve research, education and quality of services."
The interview can be found at:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/09/forensic-scienc-1.html
hlevy15@gmail.com;
