Texas may have put innocent man to death, panel told

[larrymcg421]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...deathpaneltold

Chicago Tribune

Fourteen months after Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in the nation's busiest death chamber, a renowned arson expert and Willingham's lawyer told the Senate Criminal Justice Committee that they believed Willingham might have been innocent but found nobody willing to listen to their claim in the days before the execution in February 2004.


"This was a frustrating case, and it was frustrating because it appeared that we could not get anybody to listen," said attorney Walter Reaves, who represented Willingham.


"To say that this case was thoroughly reviewed," Reaves added, "I have my doubts."


The execution of Willingham, convicted of the December 1991 arson fire that killed his three young daughters, was a focus of a hearing into a proposed innocence commission.


Governor's committee


Texas Gov. Rick Perry has, by executive order, set up his own committee. But critics, including state Sen. Rodney Ellis, a longtime advocate of criminal justice reform in Texas, and Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the New York-based Innocence Project, told the senators that to be effective the governor's panel needed to subpoena sworn testimony, obtain documents and seek forensic testing. Ellis, a Houston Democrat, has sponsored legislation to beef up the power of Perry's panel.


"Without subpoena power and the ability to order testing, I don't see how the committee can get to the bottom of these cases," Scheck said after testifying. "I haven't heard of a committee that didn't want all of those things. If you want to find out the truth, you have to have the mechanisms to do it."


A Tribune investigation of the Willingham case last December showed that he was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances--a fact backed up by testimony Tuesday by one of those experts, Gerald Hurst.


According to Hurst and three other fire experts who reviewed evidence in the case at the Tribune's request, the original investigation that concluded the fire was arson was flawed, relying on theories no longer considered valid. It is even possible the fatal fire at the Willingham home in Corsicana, a small town about an hour south of Dallas, was accidental, according to the experts.


Nonetheless, before Willingham died by lethal injection on Feb. 17, 2004, Texas judges and Perry turned aside a report from Hurst in which he questioned the arson evidence and suggested the fire was an accident.


"The state," Hurst testified Tuesday, "needs to take an interest in these matters."


Willingham maintained his innocence until the end. Strapped to a gurney in the death chamber last year, an angry Willingham said: "I am an innocent man, convicted of a crime I did not commit."


The scientific advances that Hurst and the other experts cited in the Willingham case played a role in the exoneration last year of another Texas Death Row inmate, Ernest Willis. Hurst told the Senate committee that the two fires were identical, and that an investigation is needed to determine why Willingham died and Willis lived.


Many prosecutors oppose expanding the power of Perry's committee, called the Criminal Justice Advisory Council. Barry Macha, the district attorney in Wichita County, testified legislators should first give the governor's panel a chance to work as designed.


But that drew a skeptical response from the committee chairman, state Sen. John Whitmire.


Bush role in 2000 case





"The problem is, they're appointed by the governor," Whitmire, also a Democrat from Houston, said of the council's members. "I would almost give them subpoena power and the first time they abuse it, we'll all come back."

Scheck also pointed to the case of Claude Jones, executed in December 2000 for the murder of Allen Hilzendager, who was shot and killed in a 1989 liquor store robbery. In that case, Scheck said, counsel for then-Gov. George W. Bush prepared a recommendation for Bush that did not mention that Jones' request for a 30-day stay of execution was to allow DNA tests to be done on a hair found at the scene. Bush denied the request for a stay.

Last year, the Tribune asked to see the recommendation in the Willingham case to try to determine whether Perry was informed of Hurst's last-minute analysis. But the Tribune's request was rejected by state officials who said the documents are considered confidential.

Scheck told the Senate committee he believed the hair in the Jones case was still in evidence and that an innocence commission with broad powers could seek to test the hair to determine if Jones was guilty. Without that ability, Scheck testified, the commission "would be hampered or powerless in its ability to get to the bottom of this very important case."

[Swaggs]

The death penalty has always been one of the toughest issues for me to find a position on. I'm glad I am not a politician, because I would have a very hard time answering whether I was for it or against it.

[Fritz]

"busiest death chamber" gets you thinking that author of the article might have a personal point of view.

" a renowned arson expert and Willingham's lawyer told the Senate Criminal Justice Committee that they believed Willingham might have been innocent but found nobody willing to listen to their claim in the days before the execution in February 2004."

EGAD! A defense attorney that says his client is innocent!

Yawn

[larrymcg421]

of course you ignored this:

According to Hurst and three other fire experts who reviewed evidence in the case at the Tribune's request, the original investigation that concluded the fire was arson was flawed, relying on theories no longer considered valid. It is even possible the fatal fire at the Willingham home in Corsicana, a small town about an hour south of Dallas, was accidental, according to the experts.

[sovereignstar]

Fritz has more important things to be concerned about.. like toe or no toe.

[KWhit]

Why is this surprising? Innocent people are convicted and sent to prison every day. If this story is true, I'm sure he isn't the first innocent man to be excecuted.

Didn't any of you see (or less likely read) The Green Mile?

[Fritz]

Of course the article ignored the states point of view.

I am about as willing as judge to hear a lawyer say "new evidence." For the article to be interesting I want to know a little more about the "new technology" and "outdated theories."
---
FWIW, I am a little bothered by this:

"Hurst told the Senate committee that the two fires were identical, and that an investigation is needed to determine why Willingham died and Willis lived."

This seems a little out of the realm of a technical expert. This may be worth investigating, but when I see a technical expert make a comment like this, I begin to think he is an advocate for the defense. When that happens he loses some credibility.

[JPhillips]

While I don't have a lot of sympathy for real criminals, (I did grow up the son of a prosecutor), I'm completely opposed to the death penalty. For me the question that I struggle with is, How many innocent men is it okay to kill so that the guilty ones die as well? My answer has always been zero, and my certainty that innocent people get convicted at all levels(I did grow up the son of a prosecutor!) leaves me with no choice but to oppose the death penalty.

[KWhit]

I'm right there with you JP.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

While I don't have a lot of sympathy for real criminals, (I did grow up the son of a prosecutor), I'm completely opposed to the death penalty. For me the question that I struggle with is, How many innocent men is it okay to kill so that the guilty ones die as well? My answer has always been zero, and my certainty that innocent people get convicted at all levels(I did grow up the son of a prosecutor!) leaves me with no choice but to oppose the death penalty.

Bingo. I'm completely Jeffrsonian on this point.

[rexallllsc]

I think if people went through the legal process themselves they'd see just how many people are locked up or convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

Now, I'm not trying to say that it's a high number, but more than any of us would like to believe, I'm sure.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I think if people went through the legal process themselves they'd see just how many people are locked up or convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

Now, I'm not trying to say that it's a high number, but more than any of us would like to believe, I'm sure.

Agreed. What amazes me the most is the number of people who claim to hate "big government" and tell us that goverment can't "solve anything" are the same people arguing to give the governent more power by erroding indiviual rights, argue for limiting the appeals process, and completely believe anyone the government thinks commits a crime must be guilty.

"Give the criminals rights. What about the rights of the victim?"

[Glengoyne]

I heard a report on this on NPR a few months back. The new technology involved isn't revolutionary. It is science that arson investigators have been being trained on for over a decade. It actually predates the investigation in this case. The investigators pointed out evidence that to their "old school" training indicated that an accelerator had been used. One of the points was that the wood on the bottom side of a floorboard had been singed/burned. They said that the only way that could happen was if some substance had been applied to the floor to make it superhot enough to burn the underside. Modern arson investigators say that no matter how hot the top of the floor got, there wouldn't be burns on the bottom of the floor board unless there was actually fire down there. In other words the evidence indicated the fire had smoldered beneath the floor, not that accelerant had been used.

One of the most frightening things brought to light by the story was that the investigators involved still haven't accepted the "new school" of arson investigation. They continue to adhere to the same manner of investigative techniques they used over fifteen years ago, steadfastly refusing to "buy-in" to the techniques used in other counties, and in fact pretty much every other state.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

While I don't have a lot of sympathy for real criminals, (I did grow up the son of a prosecutor), I'm completely opposed to the death penalty. For me the question that I struggle with is, How many innocent men is it okay to kill so that the guilty ones die as well? My answer has always been zero, and my certainty that innocent people get convicted at all levels(I did grow up the son of a prosecutor!) leaves me with no choice but to oppose the death penalty.

Exactly.

One mistake is one too many.

[Fritz]

This is why I am I'm completely opposed to the incarserating people with a wife or kids. For me the question that I struggle with is, How many innocent men is it okay to take away from their families so that the guilty ones are punished as well? My answer has always been zero, and my certainty that innocent people get convicted at all levels leaves me with no choice but to oppose incarserating people with a wife or kids.

[Subby]

I like to try and run down arsonists when I am out and about on my moped.

[JPhillips]

Fritz: You have a point, but the death penalty is where I draw the line. We can't free an innocent dead man when new evidence comes to light.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Subby

I like to try and run down arsonists when I am out and about on my moped.

reminds me of a chat we had:

Originally Posted by SubbyAndFritzIn2004

8:03:25 pm [Subby]: Ran over another arsonist with my moped today.
8:03:42 pm [Fritz]: A new moped , or the one you wrecked running over teamsters?
8:04:17 pm [Subby]: A new one. This one has a more chrome.
8:04:26 pm [Fritz]: Cool.
8:04:37 pm [Fritz]: So you moved to arsonists now? How can you tell?
8:10:03 pm [Subby]: Sorry, phone. Everyone has SOME potential for arson (motive) and most things will burn (opportunity). So I look for people weilding fire (means).
8:10:18 pm [Fritz]: Weilding Fire?
8:10:59 pm [Subby]: Yes, like using a lighter or matches. Smoking is just an elaborate cover up used by a secret society of arsonists.
8:12:11 pm [Subby]: I also look for Itallians. They are predisposed to arson, and to being teamsters.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We can't free an innocent dead man when new evidence comes to light.

Fair enough.

Though I suspect that freeing somebody does not restore their life.

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by Fritz

"busiest death chamber" gets you thinking that author of the article might have a personal point of view.

Well, it does. Texas executes more people per capita than any state in the US, and, if you count only executions of people convicted in courts, any country in the world.

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

One of the most frightening things brought to light by the story was that the investigators involved still haven't accepted the "new school" of arson investigation. They continue to adhere to the same manner of investigative techniques they used over fifteen years ago, steadfastly refusing to "buy-in" to the techniques used in other counties, and in fact pretty much every other state.

Doesn't suprise me. There was someone who was exhonorated of a rape-murder when it turned out that the DNA didn't match his, but the DA basically said "Texans are smarter than those damn Yankee atheistic scientists" and kept lobbying to keep the guy in prison without a retrial. I don't know how it ended up.

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Fair enough.

Though I suspect that freeing somebody does not restore their life.

I know that in England you can actually sue the Crown for false imprisonment if it turns out that they should have realized that you were innocent. IIRC, someone just got about 6 million pounds for spending 20 years in jail.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

While I don't have a lot of sympathy for real criminals, (I did grow up the son of a prosecutor), I'm completely opposed to the death penalty. For me the question that I struggle with is, How many innocent men is it okay to kill so that the guilty ones die as well? My answer has always been zero, and my certainty that innocent people get convicted at all levels(I did grow up the son of a prosecutor!) leaves me with no choice but to oppose the death penalty.

FWIW this is exactly my view on the matter as well. If we knew with 100% certainty that all convicted were guilty, I wouldn't mind. However, I don't think we should be taking any chances with this.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Fritz

reminds me of a chat we had:

Gold.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Well, it does. Texas executes more people per capita than any state in the US, and, if you count only executions of people convicted in courts, any country in the world.

Granted, but saying "Fourteen months after Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham, Willingham's lawyer and an arson expert told the Senate Criminal Justice Committee that they believed Willingham might have been innocent but found nobody willing to listen to their claim in the days before the execution in February 2004."

says the same thing, but one of the two is less charged.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Aardvark

I know that in England you can actually sue the Crown for false imprisonment if it turns out that they should have realized that you were innocent. IIRC, someone just got about 6 million pounds for spending 20 years in jail.

Would you trade 20 years (and all that goes with that) for 11.5M dollars?

I am admittedly being argumentative on this point. Execution is an irreversible penalty, but less severe ones are as well.

I suppose the point of this is that jphillips argument (above) alone is not likely to push me away from supporting the death penalty.