Wednesday, October 6, 2010

CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "LEGAL" AND "RIGHT." AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO THINK ABOUT ON THRESHHOLD OF THE BAIRD INQUIRY;


"The exchange between Bradley and Eisenberg shows there's a big difference between what's "legal" and what's right or just. False convictions are by definition "legal" until they're overturned by the appellate courts. What's more, the legal system historically values "finality" over correcting old mistakes, so it's perfectly "legal" to ignore junk science used to secure past convictions, as Bradley wants the commission to do, even if it's a profligate and shameful stance. I'm glad at least the scientists on the commission seem to understand that the administration of justice requires analyzing not just society's legal obligations but its moral ones. Bradley's pedantic search for technicalities to justify ignoring injustices promotes disrespect for the law and the legal system."

GRITS FOR BREAKFAST; "Grits for Breakfast says it "looks at the Texas criminal justice system, with a little politics and whatever else suits the author's (Jeff Blackburn) fancy thrown in. All opinions are my own. The facts belong to everybody." Its motto: "Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND OF INQUIRY: District Judge Charlie Baird agreed to hold the unprecedented two-day hearing to consider evidence on whether Cameron Todd Willing­ham was actually innocent of and executed for a crime that never occurred. Willingham was executed in 2004 in connection with a fire in his home in Corsicana that claimed the lives of his three young children. State officials – including the State Fire Marshal's Office – concluded that the 1991 fire had been deliberately set by Willingham; Willing­ham maintained his innocence, including in his last words before death...Baird, who will retire at the end of the year, will consider testimony and evidence in the case on Oct. 6 and 7. Baird last year presided over the state's first posthumous hearing in the case of Tim Cole.

BACKGROUND OF WILLINGHAM CASE: (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 were 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. Legendary "Innocence" lawyer Barry Scheck asked participants at a conference of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers held in Toronto in August, 2010, how Willingham, who had lost his family to the fire, must have felt to hear the horrific allegations made against him on the basis of the bogus evidence, "and nobody pays any attention to it as he gets executed." "It's the Dreyfus Affair, and you all know what that is," Scheck continued. "It's the Dreyfus AffaIr of the United States. Luke Power's music video "Texas Death Row Blues," can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/09/cameron-todd-willingham-texas-death-row_02.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: As Judge Charlie Baird's Court of Inquiry into whether Texas executed an innocent man gets under way a recent Grits for Breakfast post becomes extremely relevant. Jeff Blackburn reminds us that the administration of justice requires analyzing not just society's "legal" obligations but its "moral" ones - as contrasted with Texas Forensic Science Chairman John Bradley's "pedantic search for technicalities to justify ignoring injustices promotes disrespect for the law and the legal system." Although Judge Baird's Inquiry cannot bring Cameron Todd Willingham back, it can go a long way towards restoring respect for the law and the legal system in Texas - and towards reminding us what justice is really about.

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Continuing with our theme of Flawed Forensic Science Week, check out this notable article from Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey regarding Texas' Forensic Science Commission, observing that scientists among the group have rebelled against Chairman John Bradley "in a showdown between science and politics" concerning old arson cases - a conflict in which science, for once, "won a resounding victory", the Grits for Breakfast post begins under the heading, "Scientists school forensic commission chair on difference between 'legal' and 'right.'"

"Casey was particularly gratified, as is your correspondent, that scientists on the commission are insisting on addressing the question of:

"whether the State Fire Marshal's Office has a responsibility to notify law enforcement officials, district attorneys, judges and the governor when it discovers that people have been (and are being) convicted on faulty science.

Hundreds of Texans sit in prison for arson, possibly based on science discredited in the 1990s. Bradley had ignored the issue, but the scientists insist on raising it with the Fire Marshal's Office.

The tension between scientists and the prosecutor was captured in an exchange I was told of between Bradley and Commissioner Arthur Eisenberg, the highly regarded professor of pathology and anatomy and director the DNA Identity Laboratory at the University of North Texas Health Science Center. It went something like this:

Eisenberg, echoing what all the scientists present said was a responsibility to correct errors, said his office investigated all alleged errors and disseminated corrections when appropriate.

Under what law, Bradley demanded.

I don't need a law, said Eisenberg.

The commission is, as it should be, focusing on what is right, not just legal. But Bradley clearly sees it as his job to defend all criminal convictions.

That is understandable, if not always appropriate, for a DA. But it's totally inappropriate for the chairman of the Forensic Science Commission,"
the post continues.

"The exchange between Bradley and Eisenberg shows there's a big difference between what's "legal" and what's right or just. False convictions are by definition "legal" until they're overturned by the appellate courts. What's more, the legal system historically values "finality" over correcting old mistakes, so it's perfectly "legal" to ignore junk science used to secure past convictions, as Bradley wants the commission to do, even if it's a profligate and shameful stance. I'm glad at least the scientists on the commission seem to understand that the administration of justice requires analyzing not just society's legal obligations but its moral ones. Bradley's pedantic search for technicalities to justify ignoring injustices promotes disrespect for the law and the legal system."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The POST can be found at:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;