The Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial is, "Re-examining the evidence in Willingham case." It appeared in the Tuesday edition.
If an automaker discovers that a faulty design is making some of its cars accelerate without warning, the company doesn't just make fixes going forward, it inspects older models to repair the defect.
If a material used in manufacturing, such as lead paint, is a health hazard, the government doesn't just block its sale but requires the product's removal to prevent harm.
If Texas used flawed science to convict criminal defendants of arson, why wouldn't it be imperative to re-examine the evidence to make sure that previous findings are accurate and to avoid recurrences?
That's the big-picture question looming over the Texas Forensic Science Commission's investigation into the case of Cameron Todd Willingham.
And:
Commission findings could affect scores of inmates convicted of arson.
But the political pressure and national attention surrounding the inquiry shouldn't drive the report that the commission is expected to vote on in October.
The commission can't issue a judgment on Willingham's guilt or innocence. Its mission is to determine the credibility of forensic procedures used in pursuing criminal convictions. Faulty procedures must be corrected.
If official negligence or misconduct took place, the state must answer for that. But even if the evidence doesn't clearly show wrongdoing, a conviction based on bad science might still mean a wrongful execution. If so, there must be mechanisms in the legal system to make amends and avoid such an unacceptable mistake.
All Texans, including those who support the death penalty, should want to know the truth -- and to make certain that no one's life is taken erroneously in our name.
"Forensic panel's delay is vexing," is the title of a San Antonio Express-News editorial from Saturday.
The Texas Forensic Commission finally got around to reviewing the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. It only took four years.
The Legislature created the commission in 2005. Its purpose is to investigate allegations of negligence or misconduct in forensic science investigations.
The State of Texas executed Willingham in 2004 for the murder by arson of his three children thirteen years earlier. But the case against Willingham, which was almost entirely based on forensic evidence, was deeply flawed.
The Willingham case — with strong evidence of faulty science driving a prosecution and conviction — is precisely the kind of case the commission was created to investigate. In fact, it was one of the first cases the commission took under review in 2006 when the Innocence Project presented compelling arguments against the forensics that sent Willingham to death row.
In the intervening four years, the evidence that Willingham was executed for a crime he didn't commit has mounted. Three expert reviews, including one contracted by the commission, have found arson investigators didn't adhere to sound scientific principles.
And:
The commission's foot-dragging helped Perry keep a potentially embarrassing issue out of the March GOP primary.
If it continues at this glacial pace, the commission will manage to keep it out of the November general election as well.
Paul Burka posted, "The Willingham case," at his Texas Montly Burka Blog last week.
The integrity of the Texas Forensic Science Commission has been compromised ever since Rick Perry reorganized the commission, installed his longtime politically ally, Williamson County D.A. John Bradley, as chairman, and replaced other members of the commission investigating the Cameron Todd Willingham case. Willingham’s three children died in a fire that investigators said was deliberately set, and he was subsequently sentenced to death and executed. Experts who have studied the case have since concluded that arson investigators used flawed science in determining that the fire was an act of arson.
And:
Let’s be very clear about what this means. If the evidence on which the conviction of Cameron Todd Willingham was based was fundamentally flawed, then the State of Texas executed an innocent man. It means that an agency of the State of Texas is going to whitewash the killing to protect Rick Perry. And it means that John Bradley and the Forensic Science Commission believe that it is just too bad if improperly trained law enforcement officers present flawed evidence to obtain a conviction in a capital murder case.
We know the truth: The evidence was flawed. If the evidence was flawed, then so was Willingham’s conviction. We can only hope that when this sad episode is over, Perry will make a public statement of regret and clear Willingham’s name with a posthumous pardon. Don’t hold your breath.
Earlier coverage begins with this post. All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham category index.
The Beyler report prepared for the Forensic Science Commission is here in Adobe .pdf format.
David Grann's September 2009 New Yorker article is noted here. Steve Mills and Maurice Possley first reported on the case in a 2004 Chicago Tribune series on junk science. The December 9, 2004 report was titled,"Man executed on disproved forensics."The Innocence Project, which webcast Friday's FSC meeting, has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.
Comments