Thursday, December 30, 2010

CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM; FAMILY SEEKS HEARING FROM FULL THIRD COURT ON WHETHER BAIRD HEARING PROPERLY HALTED;


"Attorneys for Willingham's family – including Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project, former Gov. Mark White, and San Antonio defender Gerald Goldstein – are asking that all six judges of the Third Court consider whether Jones and Pemberton ruled correctly. Moreover, they note, the question of recusal is moot given Baird's plans to retire his position this week, on Dec. 31. Where that leaves the larger issue – of whether or not a court of inquiry is warranted – remains unclear."

REPORTER JORDAN SMITH: THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 were 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. Legendary "Innocence" lawyer Barry Scheck asked participants at a conference of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers held in Toronto in August, 2010, how Willingham, who had lost his family to the fire, must have felt to hear the horrific allegations made against him on the basis of the bogus evidence, "and nobody pays any attention to it as he gets executed." "It's the Dreyfus Affair, and you all know what that is," Scheck continued. "It's the Dreyfus AffaIr of the United States. Luke Power's music video "Texas Death Row Blues," can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/09/cameron-todd-willingham-texas-death-row_02.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A three-judge panel ruled last week that Travis County District Judge Charlie Baird should have sought recusal from presiding over a hearing last fall regarding executed inmate Cameron Todd Willingham," the Austin Chronicle story by reporter Jordan Smith published earler today under the heading, "Willingham Family Appeals to Third Court," begins.

"Now, lawyers for Willingham's surviving relatives are asking that the entire bench of the Texas Third Court of Appeals reconsider that panel's ruling,"
the story continues.

"In October, Baird heard testimony from two fire experts – brought by lawyers for Willingham's family – during a proceeding seeking to posthumously clear Willingham's name. Baird was to consider whether cause exists to initiate a court of inquiry into the actions (or inaction) of state officials prior to Willingham's death. At issue specifically is whether officials (likely the State Fire Marshal's Office and Gov. Rick Perry) relied on faulty science (and ignored new evidence, clearing the way for Willingham's 2004 execution) to conclude that Willingham set the 1991 fire at his Corsicana home that killed his three young children.

Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson had sought to recuse Baird because he believed Baird couldn't be objective on the matter. In turn, Baird refused to rule directly on the motion, instead ruling that Thompson lacked standing to raise the issue and allowing the hearing to proceed. Thompson appealed to the Third Court to halt the proceeding, a stay that came through just after the two-day hearing had concluded – meaning, in effect, that the court would not allow Baird to enter a final ruling.

In the court's opinion, written by Chief Justice Woodie Jones and joined by Justice Bob Pemberton (with Justice David Puryear dissenting), the court concluded that Baird should have recused himself or referred Thompson's motion to the region's presiding judge, Williamson County's Billy Ray Stubblefield, for consideration. In the opinion, Jones concluded that the appellate court had grounds to intervene in the matter and to stay the Willingham hearing, because Baird was sitting as a judge and not as a magistrate considering only whether to open a court of inquiry.

In dissent, Puryear concluded that the hearing was unique and that, ultimately, he didn't believe the Third Court had the standing to intervene. Puryear noted that convening a court of inquiry is a bifurcated process: First, a judge acting as magistrate should consider whether there is probable cause to open an inquiry; second, if there is cause, the region's presiding judge should appoint a district judge to preside over the subsequent inquiry. But if the hearing is in its infancy, during the probable cause phase, the Third Court does not have standing to intervene, he wrote. (Still, Puryear opined that while the judge acting in his magisterial capacity is "authorized" both to "issue an affidavit specifying 'the substantial facts establishing probable cause'" and to request that a hearing be convened, the magistrate is divested of the power to actually call witnesses or hold any hearings in order to establish probable cause. Thus, Puryear opined that in Baird's approach, he was "exercising authority that he does not possess"; interestingly, however, the statute covering the court-of-inquiry proceedings is mute on what powers a magistrate deciding probable cause has or does not have.)

Attorneys for Willingham's family – including Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project, former Gov. Mark White, and San Antonio defender Gerald Goldstein – are asking that all six judges of the Third Court consider whether Jones and Pemberton ruled correctly. Moreover, they note, the question of recusal is moot given Baird's plans to retire his position this week, on Dec. 31. Where that leaves the larger issue – of whether or not a court of inquiry is warranted – remains unclear."

The post can be found at:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A1130516

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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;