Sunday, July 25, 2010
CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM: MAYBE THE ARSON "EXPERTS" WHO SECURED HIS CONVICTION FOR THE STATE WERE JUST "INCOMPETENT; JEFF GAMSO; WHITEWASH COMING?
"New science standards were adopted by the time of the trial. And that was years before Willingham was killed. Governor Perry had been told that the investigators' conclusions were bullshit before he determined that Willingham should be killed. Want to talk about what went wrong? Start with that stuff. If the science was bad, fix it, don't rely on it. And don't excuse the execution of a man against whom there's no serious evidence of guilt merely because you can pretend that the investigators weren't negligent or malicious."
JEFF GAMSO; GAMSO FOR THE DEFENCE: (Commentary by an Ohio criminal defense lawyer);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Texas Forensic Science Commission met today," Jeff Gamso's 23 July 2010 post on Gamso for the Defence begins, under the heading, "Whitewash Coming?"
"Despite John Bradley's view that the Commission doesn't have jurisdiction to review the arson investigation that led to Cameron Todd Willingham's execution, they apparently took it up. Juan A. Lozano, writing in the Houston Chronicle for the AP, reports what happened," the post continues.
"In a report prepared last year for the commission, fire expert Craig Beyler said the original investigation was so seriously flawed that the finding of arson can't be supported. He said the investigation didn't adhere to the fire investigation standards in place at the time, or to current standards.
The commission then appointed a four-person panel to review Willingham's case. John Bradley, who is chairman of both the panel and the commission, said the panel's review concluded arson experts in the case did not commit misconduct or negligence.
Bradley and panel member Sarah Kerrigan, a forensic toxicologist and director of a crime lab at Sam Houston State University, acknowledged the science the fire investigators used in the Willingham case was flawed. But they said that didn't translate into professional negligence, because investigators were relying on the techniques and information available at the time.
New fire investigation standards were not adopted until 1992, the same year Willingham was convicted, but it was several years after that before they were adopted nationally, said Bradley, who is also the Williamson County district attorney.
The panel will prepare its final report and present it for a vote at a meeting sometime before mid-October.
So there it is. "Flawed" science used by the investigators, but they weren't negligent and didn't commit misconduct.
Excuse me, but who cares about that? I mean, sure, we don't want negligent or dishonest investigations. But this isn't about placing blame. It's about figuring out what went wrong and how to do better.
New science standards were adopted by the time of the trial. And that was years before Willingham was killed. Governor Perry had been told that the investigators' conclusions were bullshit before he determined that Willingham should be killed.
Want to talk about what went wrong? Start with that stuff. If the science was bad, fix it, don't rely on it. And don't excuse the execution of a man against whom there's no serious evidence of guilt merely because you can pretend that the investigators weren't negligent or malicious.
Oh, hey, and here's a thought. What about if maybe they were just incompetent?
If the investigators used "flawed" science, then the point isn't to decide if they were negligent. It's to find ways to make sure that all investigation is done with the best science possible. And when there's better science, to employ it.
If inaccurate work by arson investigators lead to the murder of an innocent man, then the job is to own up to it. And make sure it doesn't happen again.
Anything else is a whitewash."
The post can be found at:
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-feature-cases-issues-and.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;