On Valentine's Day, 2004, Texas Governor Rick Perry received a letter from Cameron Todd Willingham's attorney notifying him there was new expert reviews of evidence that proved that the fire that killed Willingham's three young children was not arson.
According to the Houston Chronicle, three days later - on the day of the scheduled execution, Governor Rick Perry received, by fax, the entire report at 4:52pm. At a few minutes after 5:00, the Governor sent word that he would not intervene. The death of Cameron Todd Willingham occurred that evening, at 6:20 p.m.
This is what it all comes down to. Rick Perry had the 64-page report, the evidence, in his hand, that seriously called into question the validity of the investigation that led to the conviction of Todd Willingham. Apparently, it took him 8 minutes to read all 64 pages, decide that the experts who had refuted the voo-doo fire investigation knew less than he, and get word to the executioner that it was A-OK to proceed with this death sentence.
Eight minutes. Will it take you eight minutes to read and comment on this blog? Is that enough time for you to review whether someone can live or die?
A statement from Perry spokesman Chris Cutrone, sent to the Chronicle
, said that "given the brevity of (the) report and the general counsel's familiarity with all the other facts in the case, there was ample time for the general counsel to read and analyze the report and to brief the governor on its content."Allow me to paraphrase. 'Given the fact that our minds are made up and admitting we're wrong might show weakness or political vulnerability, we made up our mind and didn't need some newfangled science to tell us that this guy was a monster' (I do a good Perry, don't I?)
As if it didn't get any weirder, one of the attorneys who read the fax and dismissed the report as irrelevant was a man named David Medina. Medina's wife, Francesca, was cleared of similar arson charges using the same science Medina dismissed in the Willingham case. From Dog Canyon
, "What I do know is that a scientist's report in the Medina case was given so much weight that the indictment was dismissed. In the Willingham case, such a report was not deemed important enough to delay an execution." Medina now serves on the Texas Supreme Court.Cue to the latest controversy - the dismissal of four appointees on the Texas Forensics Commission. According to the Washington Examiner,
Perry, who has said the execution was appropriate, replaced the head of the Texas Forensic Science Commission and two of its eight other board members Wednesday. The upheaval on the commission came just 48 hours before it was to consider a report critical of the arson finding leading to Cameron Todd Willingham's execution for the deaths of his three daughters in a 1991 fire.
Baltimore-based arson expert Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, concluded the arson finding was scientifically unsupported and investigators at the scene had "poor understandings of fire science." His report has bolstered arguments from advocacy groups that Willingham was innocent and wrongly executed.
Perry told The Associated Press the terms of the dismissed board members were expiring and replacing them "was pretty standard business as usual." But several board members have served more than one term and had their appointments renewed.
Samuel Bassett, the former chairman of the commission, appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews. When asked directly whether there was arson, Bassett claims "there was significant concern" but they were unable to continue the investigation as they were dismissed. Please watch:
My conclusion: Willingham should have had a second trial where he was able to produce all the evidence. The execution should have been stayed. Perry did this to cover up the fact that they dismissed compelling exculpatory evidence and to avoid controversy before the primary.
So there you have it. I left out a lot of information regarding this case based on the sheer volume. Some of you have mentioned pieces of it - claims that Willingham was pushing his car out of the way of the fire. That he was outside yelling for his kids while they were inside, and that he should have been in there. There are SO many questions regarding this case. I'm not equipped to say whether he was innocent or guilty. I don't think any of us are. And I think that's why he shouldn't have been convicted. If the state takes the life of someone, I want them to be SURE. No questions. None at all.
What do you think?
Comments are now closed on this thread.
OK this may be waaay off the wall but if this man was indeed innocent (which I am not saying he is, but it doesn't seem like it was really proven that he wasn't), and Perry had him killed, then wouldn't that act of Perry's be MURDER?
Let's indict Tricky Dick Hair for murder. Send HIM to Polunsky... I bet he'd be changing his tune big time.
Keepin' some late hours there, I see.
Absolutely no fomenting of disharmony here. I am with you as usual. We shouldn't be executing anybody unless we have three credible eyewitnesses and the crime is really heinous.
We have made WAY TOO MANY mistakes recently convicting innocent people in this state, not to mention the rest of the country. Certainly questionable science here, not to mention other causes quite possible.
In THIS case I think some of the reason for convicting him was he apparently IS a bad guy. and some of the reason for giving him the "noose" is the nature of the crime. (Kill 3 kids, in this state, we'd like to kill you 3 times, if we could)
We're on the same side.
pffft two minute WARNING even.....
all right there Pilgrim, much as i hate to foment disharmony as we approach the anniversary of "The Carguy and Wombat Show".....i gots to disagree. I don't mind the cowboy mystique that far too many Texans seem to venerate, but when it comes to the ending of a life of another human being in accordance with the law.....call me a tenderfoot. I prefer to be sure....as sure as we can be in a world where nothing is ever truly certain. The appelate system is entirely unlike the NFL, as there should never be a time limit on justice. If there is a doubt, my personal opinion is that we shouldn't embark on an irrevocable course of action.....it's all well and good to release an innocent man from prison after a mere 12-15 years(seriously, try it sometime), but death can't be taken back. I support the death penalty, but don't think it should be applied just because we think the accused is a bad person, or that he deserves it for any other reason than that he or she is guilty of the specific crime for which they are accused. If there is doubt, we shouldn't just go ahead because the two minute earning has already passed.
That was SUPPOSED to say an "I heart Rick Perry" t-shirt.
If I see you soon, carguy, I'll have an I
;)
All right there hombre...... I trust you read my 12:22 post. We here in Texas DO admit when we are wrong. Had several cases here lately wqhere we "ownbed up.". Just took us 12-15 years to find out we's wrong.
We do tend to "stick to our guns". Lots of "old west mentality" still in our blood. That said, it still take us 10-12 years to execute somebody. I think that's bein' purdy fair to them varmints.
(I am against the death penalty except in extremely rare cases where the guilt and heinous nature of the crime is not debatable.)
P.S. PLease understand how much it pains me to defend Perry on anything other than his hairstylist.
all good points....but if scientific evidence was the main basis for the conviction, and the science was BAD, it should have been re-looked at. There seems to be a thing in texas where the population is far too enamored of the "cowboy" mystique, where justice is layed out in black and white with no need for seconod thought or rumination.
At various times I have read 3 different findings in addition to the original. Texas Monthly a year or so ago also did a fairly straight forward article on the investigations and the trial. 1 of those agreed with the original arson investigation, all of the others felt the investigation was rushed and the findings were more about the fact that Willngham was not a "nice" guy than did he set the fire. On that basis alone I feel he probably should have had another trial. As far as Perrys role, I would guess he did not read the appeal but relied on his people to tell him what to do. Ethical, no, but isn't that the real way it works.
Its still out there that if had a Lawyer smart enough to really research the arson aspect before the case reached the Apellate court, he may have gotten a new trial. Not all lawyers are able to relate to scientific investigations such as that required for an arson case. His best chance was always with the Apellate process. Relying on a political process isn't the best way to go in any case.
I think I still want to know if he tried to beat his wife into a miscarriage. That would be very telling IMO. I will agree though that he should have been granted a new trial simply because the prosecuting DA has said previously that the original report was key in being able to obtain a death penalty verdict. That being said though, why do attorneys for capital defendants always wait until the last minute to submit whatever it is they have? The report was out there for 3 days somewhere but the can just get it to the Governor at the end of the day on the last day?
I think the court system is like "instant replay" in the NFL. Unless there is strong, irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the call on the field stands.
I think that is a pretty good system. Clarence Lee Brantley was convicted of raping and killing a cheerleader in Conroe many years ago. But when evidence to the contrary was discovered, he was exonerated and released. Innocent people DO get convicted. It DOES happen. And, as we have seen here lately, fairly often. That's why I am against the death penalty NOW. Except in rare cases. (Frankly, this might be one of them)
In this case, however, the argument is whether Perry had the obligation to issue a stay of execution based on THIS information. The actual information was not NEW. It WAS a NEW interpretation that disagreed with the original findings that had been accepted and validated by several "experts", and found to be credible by a jury and several apellate courts.
Did Perry look at it. Probably not. Was he obligated to do so. Probably. But that doesn't mean it would have changed his mind or that he should have issued a stay to thoroughly examine it. Again, it wasn't NEW evidence, just a NEW interpretation.
I was on a personal injury jury where 4 doctors testified and each one had a different opinion.
THis case had been through the system. And ALL appeals had been heard. I have not examined the documentation nor the trial records. But based on what's out now, I think Perry acted in good faith in not staying the execution. Was he right? Guess we'll never know.
I agree. I don't get it either. Why don't we hang them in the tree? Be-headings? The Gaul? Are we harking back to the 14th century? Apparently, TX is not up the current times.
The argument they make is that there was an entire system set up to weed out the innocents from those who are guilty. In this case, you can clearly see by the interviews with both the prosecutor and the original arson investigator that these guys don't understand 'burden of proof' or the most basic principles of our 'innocent until proven guilty' legal system.
Hell, Willingham's own attorney thought he was guilty as sin and maintains as much to this day.
The appelate system in Texas seems to STRONGLY prefer to let things be as they are. I don't understand it.
Okay, I will put this out there... sorry if I offend anyone. But why the heck does Texas (most Texans) feel the urgent need to drag someone to the death chamber for every small offense? Regardless of evidence? Murder, child molestation, rape are certainly no excuses. Evil. No matter what you argue, I would venture to say we have probably executed some innocent people over the years. I don't understand why? This man deserved his right to get a fair hearing and who made Perry god? The thought sickens me.
carguy,
I think it's his obligation by ethical standards if not legal ones. I'm no legal expert.
I think it's just as likely that this guy is guilty as it is that it was a toy stuck in the space heater. But you can't put someone to death becuase it's "likely". I just assumed, I guess, that the system works as advertised - that if the Appelate courts and/or the governor sees this evidence and realizes the jury didn't get to see it, that they'd realize it might be time for a new trial before they let the guy die, you know?
Kel......I think you're right.
OTOH, the governor has the right to intervene in a situation like this but does he have the obligation if HE and his staff support the findings of a jury and seveal appellate courts?
Just sayin'.