"THE DEATH PENALTY GIVES GOVERNMENT GODLIKE POWER THAT, GIVEN HUMAN FALLIBILITY, IS INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS. IN WILLINGHAM’S CASE, ARSON INVESTIGATORS USED TECHNIQUES THAT HAVE SINCE BEEN DEBUNKED AS “JUNK SCIENCE.”
WHILE WITNESSES INITIALLY REPORTED SEEING WILLINGHAM ATTEMPTING TO HELP HIS CHILDREN OUT OF HIS BURNING HOUSE, THEY SEEMED TO CHANGE THEIR STORY AND REMEMBER LESS SYMPATHETIC THINGS ABOUT HIM ONCE INVESTIGATORS STARTED TO SAY THEY SAW CLEAR SIGNS OF ARSON."
LARRY COX: THE REGISTER CITIZEN;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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." Two days before the Forensic Science Commission was to question Beyler in a public forum, the governor replaced its chairman and two other members whose terms were up. That forced the commission to delay the hearing so new members could read up on the case, and no new date has been set. Perry has since replaced a third member of the commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When the United States abolishes the death penalty, some of its most ardent proponents ironically may be remembered for having made the most effective case for its demise," Larry Cox's moving November 28, 2009 column, under the heading "Botched investigations lead to executions," begins.
"Texas Governor Rick Perry’s obvious attempt to suppress the truth in the supposed arson case against Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004 for a crime that probably didn’t occur, reveals the heinousness of capital punishment," the column continues.
"That an innocent individual can be executed is disturbing. That the death penalty—which has claimed about 50 lives in the United States so far this year—is used for political purposes, while doing nothing to deter violent crime, is abhorrent.
Less than two hours before Willingham’s execution, Perry received a report challenging the central evidence against him for the supposed arson that killed his three young daughters. But Perry permitted the execution anyway.
Five years after Willingham’s execution, the state Forensic Science Commission was on the verge of reviewing new findings that made a compelling case for his innocence. But recently, just two days before the commission’s review, Perry began replacing all four governor-appointees on the commission. He called his move purely routine.
Maybe so. One week before Thanksgiving, Texas executed Robert Lee Thompson after Perry rejected a rare recommendation from the state clemency board for the prisoner’s life to be spared. In that case, the person who actually shot the victim is serving a life sentence.
Why is this routine in Texas? Facing a Republican primary in March, Perry’s actions have struck most observers as purely political.
After all, the death penalty does more to help politicians get elected than keep us safe. Most criminologists believe that it doesn’t deter murder. A recent Death Penalty Information Center study shows that police chiefs around the country rank the death penalty last among measures that help fight crime.
Nevertheless, few politicians publicly oppose it. Additionally, the election of district attorneys and judges creates such a strong political motive to secure harsh sentences that investigations and prosecutions can be sullied by manipulating evidence.
Securing testimony from dubious sources to justify a theory of someone’s guilt is too easy. For example, the government relied on a jailhouse snitch (the most dubious of all such sources) in Willingham’s case and in numerous other cases where strong innocence claims have later emerged.
That’s a factor in the Georgia case of Troy Davis, who has spent two decades on death row and now will have a court hear his claim of innocence, following a ruling from the Supreme Court.
The death penalty gives government godlike power that, given human fallibility, is incredibly dangerous. In Willingham’s case, arson investigators used techniques that have since been debunked as “junk science.”
While witnesses initially reported seeing Willingham attempting to help his children out of his burning house, they seemed to change their story and remember less sympathetic things about him once investigators started to say they saw clear signs of arson.
Texas and other states should improve their use of fire science and the best technical tools available.
But bias and ambition can always corrupt perceptions and conclusions. Justifiable outrage over senseless killings can color emotions in the search for truth.
Even the most honorable and well-intentioned prosecutors and judges can succumb to intense political pressure. The results, predictably, are wrongful convictions or, as in the Willingham case, a wrongful execution.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2006 that he didn’t believe the United States had executed anyone who was innocent. If that had happened, Scalia said, “we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops.”
Willingham’s name isn’t being shouted from rooftops, though it should be, along with the names of other innocent men who were executed like Carlos de Luna, Ruben Cantu, and Larry Griffin. Have we become so numb that the killing of innocent people is acceptable?
Had Willingham been sentenced to life in prison, he could be a free man today.
Instead we are left to ask, as former Texas Governor Mark White recently did: Why do we impose the death penalty, given the possibility that an innocent person will be executed?
Larry Cox is executive director of Amnesty International USA. Amnesty International is dedicated to freeing prisoners of conscience, gaining fair trials for political prisoners, ending torture, political killings and “disappearances,” and abolishing the death penalty throughout the world."
The column can be found at:
http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2009/11/28/opinion/doc4b108ca944550019227569.txt
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
