"CO-COUNSEL ALAN BRISTOL AND I OFFERED WILLINGHAM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY IN RETURN FOR A SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT. SUCH OFFER WAS REJECTED IN AN OBSCENE AND POTENTIALLY VIOLENT CONFRONTATION WITH HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL."
JUDGE JOHN JACKSON: ONE OF CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM'S PROSECUTORS. (GUEST COLUMN:THE CORSICAN DAILY SUN.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"ALL OF THIS IS GRASPING AT STRAWS, AND NONE OF IT MATTERS IF THE FINDING OF ARSON COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED. IF THERE'S NO ARSON, THERE'S NO CRIME. PERIOD. YOU HAVE TO PROVE A CRIME TOOK PLACE, NOT JUST THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A BAD PERSON."
MICHAEL LANDAUER; EDITOR; THE TEXAS DEATH PENALTY BLOG;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Jackson - one of Cameron Todd Willingham's prosecutors - attempts to justify Willingham's execution in a guest commentary published in the Corsican Daily Sun on August 29, 2009, under the heading, "Willingham guilt never in doubt."
"The Corsicana Daily Sun missed a golden journalistic opportunity on Thursday by merely reprinting the AP article with respect to the Cameron Todd Willingham murder case," Jackson's column begins.
"The Daily Sun is in possession of its compete reportage of the early '90's trial and is in a much better position to examine the actual trial evidence elicited," the column continues.
"The Willingham trial has become a sort of cause celebre by anti-death penalty proponents because it seems to be an example of outmoded scientific techniques which led to a miscarriage of justice. In fact, the trial testimony you reported in 1991 contains overwhelming evidence of guilt completely independent of the undeniably flawed forensic report.
Always omitted from any examination of the actual trial are the following facts:
1. The event which caused the three childrens' deaths was the third attempt by Todd Willingham to kill his children established by the evidence. He had attempted to abort both pregnancies by vicious attacks on his wife in which he beat and kicked his wife with the specific intent to trigger miscarriages;
2. The “well-established burns” suffered by Willingham were so superficial as to suggest that the same were self-inflicted in an attempt to divert suspicion from himself;
3. Blood-gas analysis at Navarro Regional Hospital shortly after the homicide revealed that Willingham had not inhaled any smoke, contrary to his statement which detailed “rescue attempts;”
4. Consistent with typical Navarro County death penalty practice, Willingham was offered the opportunity to eliminate himself as a suspect by polygraph examination. Such opportunity was rejected in the most vulgar and insulting manner;
5. Willingham was a serial wife abuser, both physically and emotionally. His violent nature was further established by evidence of his vicious attacks on animals which is common to violent sociopaths;
6. Witness statements established that Willingham was overheard whispering to his deceased older daughter at the funeral home, “You're not the one who was supposed to die.” (The origin of the fire occured in the infant twins bedroom) and;
7. Any escape or rescue route from the burning house was blocked by a refrigerator which had been pushed against the back door, requring any person attempting escape to run through the conflagration at the front of the house.
Co-counsel Alan Bristol and I offered Willingham the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty in return for a sentence of life imprisonment. Such offer was rejected in an obscene and potentially violent confrontation with his defense counsel.
The Willingham case was charged as a multiple child murder, and not an arson-murder to achieve capital status. I am convinced that in the absence of any arson testimony, the outcome of the trial would have been unchanged, a fact that did not escape the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. While anti-death penalty advocates can muster some remarkably good arguments, Todd Willingham should not be anyone's poster child."The column can be found at:
http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/opinion/local_story_241210447.html""Well, he was a foul-mouthed wife-beater;" That seems to be the response of the chief prosecutor of the Willingham case," Editor Michael Landauer responds in the Texas Death Penalty Blog.
""In an OPED for the Corsicana Daily Sun, John Jackson defends his prosecution of Todd Willingham, making seven points," Landauer continues.
A rebuttal seems in order.
1. It's an enormous stretch to say that Willingham's beating of his wife when she was pregnant constituted previous attempts at murder.
2. The new evidence debunks the thought that his burns were minor.
3. New evidence backs up Willingham's version of events. A test hours later that says he did not suffer from smoke inhalation doesn't prove anything.
4. So Willingham cursed when offered a polygraph test. So what?
5. So Willingham was a violent man. So what?
6. Who knows what this statement means. Maybe he meant he should have died.
7. There's no evidence that the refrigeraor had been moved there by Willingham for this purpose. Besides, the official report on the scene says escape was possible from that door.
All of this is grasping at straws, and none of it matters if the finding of arson could not be supported. If there's no arson, there's no crime. Period. You have to prove a crime took place, not just that the defendant was a bad person.
And the man making these weak arguments is now a sitting judge in Texas. The notion that we only convict on the facts of the case -- not on whether someone is a bad guy -- is a concept that is easy to grasp for layman sitting on juries. The case for a central team of prosecutors in death cases has never seemed more appealing.
No wonder this case is bringing a fresh wave of embarrassment to the state..."
This rebuttal can be found at:
http://deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/08/well-he-was-a-foul-mouthed-wif.htmlThe Texas Death Penalty Blog also published a rebuttal to Jackson's column by Nina Morrison, a Staff Attorney at the Innocence Project who has handled post-conviction cases in Texas for seven years and helped exonerate several people across the state through DNA testing.
"Judge John Jackson, who prosecuted Cameron Todd Willingham in the 1990s, recently wrote in the Corsicana Daily News that "facts" showing "overwhelming evidence" of Willingham's guilt are being ignored," Morrison begins;
"The truth is that all of the evidence that Jackson and his colleagues used to convict Willingham has been disproven," she continues.
""In the five years since Willingham was executed, several investigations - including an exhaustive report in the New Yorker this week - deconstruct all of the evidence and show that he was innocent.
Jackson himself now admits that the forensic case supporting the arson theory is "undeniably flawed" but he clings to the idea that Willingham was guilty, focusing on seven other points and shading each of them to conceal the truth:
1. Jackson claims Willingham beat his wife when she was pregnant in an attempt to end her pregnancies. In fact, Willingham's wife has denied this and also told investigators he would never hurt his children.
2. Jackson claims Willingham's burns were so minor that they must have been self- inflicted to fake evidence of trying to save his family. In fact, scientific experts have conducted experiments with identical fires and Willingham's burns are normal for this type of fire.
3. Jackson claims medical tests show Willingham didn't inhale smoke and thus didn't try to rescue his family. In fact, Willingham tried desperately to go back into the house but firefighters physically restrained him.
4. Jackson claims Willingham refused to take a polygraph examination. This is true, but it is by no means evidence of guilt. Defense attorneys routinely advise their clients not to take polygraphs because they have proven unreliable (which is why they are not admissible in court).
5. Jackson likens Willingham to "violent sociopaths." In fact, a prosecution expert who testified that Willingham was a "sociopath" was expelled from his professional association just three years later for unethical behavior, including making diagnoses without examining people. Willingham's former probation officer and a judge both directly refute any notion that he was a sociopath.
6. Jackson claims Willingham meant to kill only his twins, citing the origin of the fire in their room and a witness who supposedly heard him whisper to his older daughter's body that she wasn't supposed to die. In fact, even the experts at Willingham's trial admitted that they could not detect chemicals showing arson in the twins' room. A grieving father telling his dead daughter that she wasn't supposed to die is not evidence of guilt.
7. Jackson claims that a refrigerator in the house was pushed against a door, implying that Willingham moved it to trap the children inside. In fact, the refrigerator was covering a back door because there were two refrigerators in the small kitchen. The police detective and the fire chief who handled the case both now say that the refrigerator's location does not support the theory that the fire was arson.
Readers can judge for themselves whether Jackson is deliberately coloring the truth or simply unable to see the facts of the case clearly, perhaps because he cannot face his own role in a great tragedy. But facts are facts - and they have already been obscured for far too long in this case."
Morrisson's rebuttal can be found at:
http://deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/09/time-to-face-the-truth-in-the.htmlHarold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
