Executing an innocent man

Charlie Burr

Willingham1The 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 twelve 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.”

-- Cameron Todd Willingham, February 17, 2004

Before our primary season is fully upon us, it's worth taking some time to look at a chilling and extraordinary investigative piece from David Gann in The New Yorker on the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.

The state of Texas convicted Willingham of murdering his children by arson. The local district attorney, Pat Batchelor, described Willingham's motive this way: “The children were interfering with his beer drinking and dart throwing.”

Willingham was innocent. The theory of a man-made arson rested almost entirely on disproven, antiquated ideas about how fire acts in extreme temperatures.

Despite frantic last minute efforts to win a stay of execution -- including a report submitted by fire expert Dr. Gerald Hurst that "not a single item of physical evidence supports a finding of arson" -- the state of Texas delivered a lethal injection to Cameron Todd Willingham on Feb. 17, 2004.

Gann's description of the original scene at Willingham's home:

The fire moved quickly through the house, a one-story wood-frame structure in a working-class neighborhood of Corsicana, in northeast Texas. Flames spread along the walls, bursting through doorways, blistering paint and tiles and furniture. Smoke pressed against the ceiling, then banked downward, seeping into each room and through crevices in the windows, staining the morning sky.

Buffie Barbee, who was eleven years old and lived two houses down, was playing in her back yard when she smelled the smoke. She ran inside and told her mother, Diane, and they hurried up the street; that’s when they saw the smoldering house and Cameron Todd Willingham standing on the front porch, wearing only a pair of jeans, his chest blackened with soot, his hair and eyelids singed. He was screaming, “My babies are burning up!” His children—Karmon and Kameron, who were one-year-old twin girls, and two-year-old Amber—were trapped inside.

Willingham told the Barbees to call the Fire Department, and while Diane raced down the street to get help he found a stick and broke the children’s bedroom window. Fire lashed through the hole. He broke another window; flames burst through it, too, and he retreated into the yard, kneeling in front of the house. A neighbor later told police that Willingham intermittently cried, “My babies!” then fell silent, as if he had “blocked the fire out of his mind.”

Diane Barbee, returning to the scene, could feel intense heat radiating off the house. Moments later, the five windows of the children’s room exploded and flames “blew out,” as Barbee put it. Within minutes, the first firemen had arrived, and Willingham approached them, shouting that his children were in their bedroom, where the flames were thickest. A fireman sent word over his radio for rescue teams to “step on it.”

More men showed up, uncoiling hoses and aiming water at the blaze. One fireman, who had an air tank strapped to his back and a mask covering his face, slipped through a window but was hit by water from a hose and had to retreat. He then charged through the front door, into a swirl of smoke and fire. Heading down the main corridor, he reached the kitchen, where he saw a refrigerator blocking the back door.

Todd Willingham, looking on, appeared to grow more hysterical, and a police chaplain named George Monaghan led him to the back of a fire truck and tried to calm him down. Willingham explained that his wife, Stacy, had gone out earlier that morning, and that he had been jolted from sleep by Amber screaming, “Daddy! Daddy!”

“My little girl was trying to wake me up and tell me about the fire,” he said, adding, “I couldn’t get my babies out.”

While he was talking, a fireman emerged from the house, cradling Amber. As she was given C.P.R., Willingham, who was twenty-three years old and powerfully built, ran to see her, then suddenly headed toward the babies’ room. Monaghan and another man restrained him. “We had to wrestle with him and then handcuff him, for his and our protection,” Monaghan later told police. “I received a black eye.” One of the first firemen at the scene told investigators that, at an earlier point, he had also held Willingham back. “Based on what I saw on how the fire was burning, it would have been crazy for anyone to try and go into the house,” he said.

Willingham was taken to a hospital, where he was told that Amber—who had actually been found in the master bedroom—had died of smoke inhalation. Kameron and Karmon had been lying on the floor of the children’s bedroom, their bodies severely burned. According to the medical examiner, they, too, died from smoke inhalation.

The rest of the must-read piece can be found here.

It's hard to think of a worse injustice. As a father, I can't imagine hearing my daughter burn to death, only later to be charged with a crime I did not commit. Our system of justice failed Willingham in every conceivable way.


From Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project:

So what now? Whether our criminal justice system has executed an innocent man should no longer be an open question. We don't know how often it happens, but we know it has happened. Cameron Todd Willingham's case proves that.

The focus turns to how we can stop it from happening again. As long as our system of justice makes mistakes -- including the ultimate mistake -- we cannot continue executing people.

At the same time, the problems in the Willingham case are not limited to people facing the death penalty. The Innocence Project has found that forensic science problems were a factor in 50 percent of all wrongful convictions that were later overturned with DNA testing. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that many forensic disciplines are not rooted in solid science. The report called on Congress to create a National Institute of Forensic Science to set nationwide standards and ensure that evidence used in criminal cases is sufficiently scientific. This can be done cost-effectively and without creating a large bureaucracy.

It's not just possible to improve forensic science in this country -- it's imperative. If Cameron Todd Willingham's case teaches us nothing else, it should make improving the reliability of our criminal justice system a top priority nationwide. It's not enough to feel bad that an innocent man was executed; we must use this moment to do better.

In light of clear, undeniable evidence that our government executed an innocent man, what should Oregon do about its death penalty? Does the case of Cameron Todd Willingham change your thinking?

Discuss.

Comments

  • Jel-N (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Any examples of this in the State of Oregon? No. I thought not.

  • Charlie Burr (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not comfortable with this happening anywhere in America. I'd like to see Oregon move to true life without parole as an alternative.

  • Robert Harris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jel-N

    A quick google search led me to...

    http://forejustice.org/wc/pamela_sue_reser_v2_i8.htm

    No, not a death penalty case. Good thing I guess. But are you saying that Oregon justice system NEVER would make a mistake in a DP Case? Or just that we should wait for one before we review the DP.

  • Joe Hill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    G-d have mercy on us all.

    We might also bring to mind here that "Justices" Scalia and Thomas continue to maintain that innocence is not a defense in a case such as this after the jury has rendered its verdict.

    Really, when you think of what history's verdict will be on a society such as ours, it is soul-crushing.

  • Donnie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    All life is precious.

  • Murphy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just more evidence for my contention that in order to support the death penalty, one must adhere to at least one of the following arguments:

    1) The criminal justice system is infallible --

    or

    2) The possibility of executing an innocent individual is worth the risk to maintain capital punishment.

    The former is absurd, and if your choose the latter, you're essentially arguing that if a state executes an innocent person (as it appears Texas has done) -- that's just too damn bad.

  • Murphy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Any examples of this in the State of Oregon? No. I thought not."

    Simply because something hasn't happened (lately) doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Or do you believe the legal system is immune to error?

  • mandm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's Texas. It's happened before; it'll happen again, with very little acknowlegdgement or apology.

    jmo

  • True Lifer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm with Charlie - an injustice anywhere is wrong. Oregon should go to true life for certain crimes, because wrongful convictions happen. No one should be put through the experience of being wrongly on death row.

  • Rep Chip Shields (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks Charlie for calling attention to this important issue. The death penalty just isn't necessary when there is the option of true life with no chance of parole, plus restitution paid to the victims' heirs.

    Fortunately, the Supreme Court, minus Scalia and Thomas, are coming around to the idea that executing an innocent person may have constitutional problems.

    From Professor Doug Berman's Sentencing and Policy Blog on August 17, 2009:

    "The Supreme Court is making some rare summer news this morning through a ruling in a high-profile capital case. Here are the basic details from this SCOTUSblog postby Lyle Denniston:

    The Supreme Court, over two Justices’ dissents, on Monday ordered a federal judge in Georgia to consider and rule on the claim of innocence in the murder case against Troy Anthony Davis (In re Davis, 08-1443) The Court told the District Court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence.”

    Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented..."

  • Douglas K. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Any examples of this in the State of Oregon? No. I thought not."

    An actually innocent person executed? Not yet. Actually innocent people wrongly convicted of crimes that could have carried the death penalty? Almost certainly. Innocent people coerced into guilty pleas by threatening them with the death penalty? Yes, absolutely.

    I'm not content to entrust life and death to a system that does in fact convict innocent people from time to time. We send an innocent person to prison, we can let him out again with an apology and maybe offer compensation. Any death-penalty supporters have any constructive suggestions on how to make things right for Mr. Willingham?

  • (Show?)

    Next week the Salem Progressive Film Series is showing The Exonerated, which will be followed by a discussion with Curtis McCarty who was exonerated in 2007 after serving 21 years, 19 years on death row, for a 1982 murder he didn’t commit. The details arehere at the Oregon Progressive Network and here on the Salem Progressive Film Series site.

  • fbear (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For a case of wrongful conviction in Oregon, there's the case of Santiago Morales Ventura.

    Unfortunately, there's not a lot about his case on the internet, but it was big news around here 20 years ago.

    One thing that's seen in a lot of cases where it's clear the person who was convicted is innocent is that prosecutors refuse to see that someone was wrongfully convicted.

    There are also seems to be little or no accountability when prosecutorial misconduct is involved in wrongful convictions.

  • Jel-N (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chip you said there are constitutional problems? The US Consitution says that no one can answer for a crime CAPITAL or otherwise, wihthout due process of law. So long as there is due process the US Constitution authorizes capital punishment. Why is the phrase "capital" mentioned in the Constitution if the death penalty was not contemplated?

  • steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How about this: We keep the death penalty as is. BUT, if the sentence is overturned or the defendant exonerated before or after execution, the prosecutor in the case serves 20 years to life in federal penitentiary. No appeals.

  • Amar (unverified)
    (Show?)

    May your movement reach to the conclusion, the man is being executed for his own family members, how pathetic.

  • Bartender (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not trying to speak for Chip here, Jel-n, but he did say "the Supreme Court, minus Scalia and Thomas, are coming around to the idea that executing an innocent person may have constitutional problems."

    So while capitol punishment itself might not be unconstitutional, putting innocent people to death surely is.

    Excluding evidence that could exonerate a person, particularly one facing the death penalty (as was the case for Troy Davis) is not due process in my opinion. I'm thrilled that the Supreme Court has ordered the lower court to reconsider his case.

    This was a fascinating (and horrifying) piece by the New Yorker. Thank you Charlie for bringing it to our attention here.

  • Jel-N (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There is lots of info out there about this "innocent" guy. Assaulted his wife to cause a miscarriage, long criminal record that goes back to being a juvie. This was not a case where DNA showed someonelse did it, the argument here is that the expert testimony on the arson was flawed. OK, I agree that would be a basis for a new trial, but that did not seem to be the only evidence out there to convict him.

  • Jel-N (unverified)
    (Show?)

    According to the Texas Attorney General the last words of the defendant are not exactly as Mr. Burr starts his article. After he made his protest of innocence he looked at his ex-wife and called her a bitc& and that he hoped she rotted in hell. He then tried to make an obsecene gesture.

  • Murphy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jel-N --

    There is little doubt that Mr. Willingham was not a great guy, but all those alleged bad acts are irrelevant to his actual guilt or innocence and the circumstances of his subsequent execution. His convictions was largely based upon the now completely discredited scientific testimony.

    And as far as his bitter last words and ugly behavior, well -- put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself what your attitude would be toward those whom you blamed for putting you there. I don't think you'd be filled with sweetness and light.

    Steve wrote: "How about this: We keep the death penalty as is. BUT, if the sentence is overturned or the defendant exonerated before or after execution, the prosecutor in the case serves 20 years to life in federal penitentiary. No appeals."

    And the family of the wrongfully executed individual can sue for wrongful death in civil court everyone involved in the conviction, including the members of the jury. I suspect that would put an end to executions pretty quickly.

  • Arthur (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't see where the State of Texas agreed that Willingham was innocent. There is a big difference between a lousy trial which certainly should mean that someone should not be executed to innocent. A few years back the exact same things were said about a Virginia inmate named Roger Coleman. Then DNA testing long after his execution proved he in fact did murder and rape his victim. Good luck getting Oregonians to vote to abolish the death penalty. Another example of how out of touch would-be Senator Shields is with most Oregonians.

  • (Show?)

    I don't see where the State of Texas agreed that Willingham was innocent. There is a big difference between a lousy trial which certainly should mean that someone should not be executed to innocent.

    Well..now we're just down to splitting hairs. The guy didn't commit arson and kill his family...a crime for which he was convicted and executed. Whether the State of Texas finds him "innocent" or not is beside the point. They put someone to death for a crime they didn't commit.

    Finding ways to look to excuse it just makes it uglier.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This shows how the death penalty, any death penalty, does not "protect the innocent" as justice officials claim it does.

    It also shows how, in many cases like this one, the prosecuter just wanted this case "off his desk" quickly as to enhance the myth that the accused got "a speedy and fair trial" and to show that the procesutor was "doing his job".

  • Jeannie Berg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Any examples of this in Oregon?

    Yes.

    Philip Scott Cannon

    Imprisoned with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole in 1998. His conviction was recently overturned by a Marion County judge and yet he remains in prison awaiting retrial in Polk County. They can keep him there for as long as six years while they get it together for a new trial. He probably would have gotten the death penalty had the judge not advised the jury to take any doubts they had about his guilt into consideration during the sentencing phase of the trial.

    I've known Scott for several years through my role as a sponsor of the Lifers club in the prison. Recently Eric Mason took a strong interest in his case and has used his skills as a private investigator to put together the evidence to free Scott. He's done a remarkable job and Scott now has a chance for freedom. Having gotten regular reports on the progress of his case I'm confident that Scott would not have gotten another chance were it not for the fact the Eric took on his case with great zeal. The public defenders assigned to his case over the years did not have the time, did not take the time or were not paid enough to do the work needed and those in power have not been interested.

    Oregon is one of only two states without an operating Innocence Project, it's not because there aren't wrongly convicted prisoners here it's because there are too few people who care.

  • Jel-N (unverified)
    (Show?)

    These "innocent" peoples' records do matter. The criminal lovers out there in our party try to give half facts and portray these people as martyrs. Look at this article. There is a picture of this seemingly nice father playing with his kid, a censored version of his last words and a partial explanation of some of the evidence without hearing from the other side. Surely the jury heard more evidence than an arson report. For example, according to witnesses he moved his car so the flames would not damage it while his children roasted alive. Also the jury could have voted for true life but they chose death based on his horrendous past The psych eval called him a sociopath- evidence probably kept from the trial jury due to rules of evidence which govern trials but not sentencings.

    This guy in all likelyhood burned his children to death! Murphy's apoligist comment of his last words of telling his wife to burn in hell (interesting considering his children were burned to death) is typical let's feel sorry for the criminal rhetoric.

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Count me on the side of Life without possibility of parole.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Listen to yourself, Jel-N! Your "in all liklihood" argument is a tacit admission that Texas did not prove guilt, but you "feel" it made a good enough case to end a life?! This isn't any justice but that of a lynch mob.

  • USB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It seems that those who wish to have the death penalty repealed too often take the wrong approach. The argument should be that no person ever has the right to take the life of another. That despite our best efforts, mistakes can be made during trials.

    Instead, Mr Burr offers an argument too easily disputed and flawed. He is convinced of Mr. Willingham's innocence based on flawed testimony. Testimony that should surely should have been examined and casue for a new trial. But all the other incriminating facts about the case are not revealed by Mr. Burr.

    Next, proponents of the death penalty do the research on Mr. Willingham, seize upon Mr. Burr's intentional omissions, and then stand firmly in the kill corner. Not very effective in getting minds or laws changed Mr. Burr.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The salient point of Charlie's exposition is the failure of the state to effectively prove the guilt of the executed man.

    Any civilized person would deny the state the power to execute citizens whom they cannot rightfully convict of a heinous crime. There still will be those who want the state to preserve the power to terrorize citizens with the threat of death that can be levied without justice. How do you think you could be very effective in getting minds changed in those cases, 'USB'?

  • (Show?)

    Well, the writeup I read said that he tried to save his children, but was driven back by the flames.

    So much so that his hair caught on fire.

    That's what I read in the Oregonian a few days ago.

    p.s. I'm not in favor of throwing prosecutors in jail if it is found that they executed an innocent man. Even today, the very first thing prosecutors attempt to do after an execution is to destroy the evidence - specifically so that people cannot be exonerated posthumously. As it is presently, prosecutors already receive salary based - not on justice - but on how many convictions they can get. This is the fundamental cause of the abuses in the system.

  • (Show?)

    These "innocent" peoples' records do matter. The criminal lovers out there in our party try to give half facts and portray these people as martyrs.

    Your language suggests that those of us who place CIVIL LIBERTIES as a priority for all citizens are somehow nothing more than enablers for criminals. It's insulting and frankly, ridiculous.

    Justice isn't simply for crime victims. Justice is for everyone.

    Whether or not the man in question from Charlie's story committed other crimes is irrelevant. If he's convicted of those other crimes then he should serve the appropriate sentence(s) FOR THOSE CRIMES.

    He should not have been executed for a crime that in fact may not have existed at all (and it seems from the arson expert from the state that it didn't) and that the individual in question didn't commit. Attempts to justify the death penalty for this individual are simply immoral, in my view.

  • USB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The problem is that if the intent of his article is to convince others that the system is flawed, only those who already oppose the death penalty might now reamin convinced. A better approach might have been to be more forthright with all the information (good and bad).

  • USB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "remain" Sorry, I am using a borrowed PC and can't find spell check.

  • Murphy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Murphy's apoligist comment of his last words of telling his wife to burn in hell (interesting considering his children were burned to death) is typical let's feel sorry for the criminal rhetoric."

    Sheesh -- what in the hell did you expect him to do? <bthank them="" and="" blow="" a="" few="" kisses?<="" b=""> You've got a peculiar view of human behavior my friend. Here's a guy who's about to be executed for a crime he probably didn't commit, and you've using the fact that he was in a foul mood as proof that liberals are "criminal lovers."

    Hate the break the news to you -- but it appears as if the real criminal here is the state of Texas, or is manslaughter no longer a crime there?

    "Attempts to justify the death penalty for this individual are simply immoral, in my view."

    Not only are they simply immoral for this case, they are immoral in every case because unless and until our society is able to create a justice system that is infallible, the possibility of a horrible miscarriage of justice -- the execution of an individual who is indeed innocent of the crime -- cannot be eliminated. And nothing is more immoral than the state, in the name of its citizens, executing an innocent man (or woman). Of course, in places like Texas, justice is stuck somewhere between Leviticus and the mid 18th century

    This issue also raises the hypocrisy of the right to a new level of absurdity. Conservatives incessantly prattle on about the congenital incompetence of government -- except when it comes to killing people, at which time it becomes nearly Solomon-like in its transcendent wisdom.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I remain convinced that the people USB contends would not be convinced by Charlie could not be convinced by reasonable argument. They argue from an emotional frame of reference, and are afraid, very afraid!

  • Bartender (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Surely the jury heard more evidence than an arson report."

    Yes, they also heard eyewitness testimony that changed dramatically after "authorities had concluded, in the beginning of January, 1992, that Willingham was likely guilty of murder," as well as the word of a mentally unstable jail house snitch (who later recanted his damning  testimony, then recanted the recanting).

    As the article states: "Dozens of studies have shown that witnesses’ memories of events often change when they are supplied with new contextual information."

    "For example, according to witnesses he moved his car so the flames would not damage it while his children roasted alive.

    And yet you discount his explanation that he moved the car so it wouldn't explode and further harm the children or hamper fire fighter's efforts to reach them. How could witnesses possibly know the reason he moved his car? How could they know what was going through his head? That calls for speculation, and is not fact.

    "Also the jury could have voted for true life but they chose death based on his horrendous past"

    Actually, according to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty:

    "Texas does not offer the option of life without parole. Often, juries are concerned that men and women convicted of brutal crimes will be released from prison, which leads them to impose the death penalty. However, studies have shown that when given the choice juries are more likely to impose the sentence of life without parole."

    "The psych eval called him a sociopath..."

    Oh, you mean the one performed by two guys who never even met him? Did you even read the New Yorker article? 

  • (Show?)

    Bartender - Very well-reasoned argument. Thanks for that.

  • Joe Smith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm curious; I spent half an hour composing a comment, and when I hit "post" got a box refusing to do it. Is this some sort of virtual execution?

  • Jel-N (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bartender,

    Yes I agree, I think that people who assualt women to create a miscarriage and have long criminal records are in fact demons. And yes I tend not to believe them when they offer up excuses. It is also not my responsbility to give every detail in a few sentence blog, I am not the one trying to vindicate a convicted child killer with an article.

  • Kathy Pugh (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Since 1984 five people who were convicted of murder in Oregon have been found to be innocent and released. One of those five had "confessed" to avoid the death penalty. The conviction of a sixth person, from Polk County, has just been overturned because of junk-science evidence. So yes, Oregon does have examples.

  • Chris Olson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is as much a story about junk science and our willingness to believe anything so called experts will tell us. Could this be a lesson for better science education as well?

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While it is an unpleasant duty to support an exculpation of an unjustly convicted child killer, it certainly cedes no position of moral superiority to anyone defending a state justice department that goes out of bounds in hot pursuit of the death penalty!

    As an example of moral superiority that it engenders, recall then-Governor G. W. Bush mocking the plea for clemency by a woman on death row, responding on camera: "Oh, please don't kill me, boo-hoo-hoo!"

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The way to end the death penalty is to just rename it "Retroactive Abortion".

  • Bartender (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Yes I agree, I think that people who assualt women to create a miscarriage and have long criminal records are in fact demons."

    I am a survivor of domestic violence, and am most certainly not defending him for assaulting his wife. Far from it. But this information was not available to the jury until the sentencing phase of the trial (as you yourself stated) and was not under consideration in determining his guilt.  

    As Carla stated above: "Whether or not the man in question from Charlie's story committed other crimes is irrelevant. If he's convicted of those other crimes then he should serve the appropriate sentence(s) FOR THOSE CRIMES."   

    As far as that "long" criminal history goes, the case record describes his convictions: two non-violent felonies (Second Degree Burglary and Grand Larceny) and five misdemeanors relating to sniffing paint, DUII, and shoplifting. Even the judge who presided over some of these cases said it was all "dumb-kid stuff."

    Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't feel anyone should be demonized. Life is rarely so starkly black and white. To infer that there are "demons" implies that there are also "angels," and I don't believe anyone is all good or all bad.

    "And yes I tend not to believe them when they offer up excuses."

    Yet you're apparently more than willing to believe those whose theories are antiquated and scientifically proven wrong. I don't call the refuting of junk science an "excuse."   

    "It is also not my responsbility to give every detail in a few sentence blog, I am not the one trying to vindicate a convicted child killer with an article."

    No, you're the one using selective details in trying to vindicate junk science, notoriously unreliable (and maleable) witness testimony, and the word of another criminal in order to refute this article. 

    It's not your responsibility to "give every detail," but I would expect you to at least be able to back up and/or defend the statements you made.

    Oh, and thanks Sal. Coming from you especially, I sincerely consider that high praise. : )   

  • criminal_injustice (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Murder by the state is far more immoral than murder by an individual.

  • V-dogg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Check out the column in the Corsica Daily Sun from one of the prosecutors in the case. Fills in some of the gaps that anti-death penalty proponent gloss over when presenting their arguments. A sample:

    "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;"

    "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;""

    "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)"

connect with blueoregon