Columns

Perry is right about the death penalty

It’s telling when a crowd erupts into raucous applause and praise for a presidential candidate. It’s a showcase of how much they approve of the candidate’s policies, how they feel about their take on major issues, and overall just how much they like that candidate. But most audiences typically wait for the candidate to actually finish speaking before bursting into cheers.

During the Sept. 8, 2011, Republican Presidential Debate, the crowd cut off NBC’s Brian Williams with candid approval over Gov. Rick Perry’s outstanding execution record.

“Governor Perry, question about Texas,” Williams said. “Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times.”

As soon as the record was stated, the studio audience stunned the usually stoic Williams with whistles and thunderous applause. They were absolutely ecstatic, as they should be.

Texas is known for a great many things — from cowboys, to barbecue, to rodeos. But the one thing we should be known for the most in this modern era is how willing we are to stand our ground on important issues like the death penalty.

In these modern times, the death penalty has been demonized by its opponents as uncivilized and obsolete. Indeed, with the exception of a few Eastern European nations, all of Europe, Australia, Mexico, Canada and parts of Southern Africa have completely abolished the death penalty in their countries, equaling 96 countries in total.

Nine countries have abolished it for ordinary crimes, and 34 have abolished it at least in practice. Only 58 countries in the world today still retain their adherence to the death penalty; among them are a vast majority of the Middle East, Asia, and of course the United States.

“Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?” Williams asked after the audience had died down a bit and the anchor himself had regained a bit of his composure.

There’s always that heavy moral implication that you just might have the blood of an innocent man on your hands. There is always going to be a chance that a man may be accidentally convicted of a crime worthy of the death penalty. However, in the US we have a fail-safe procedure in place to stop as many of those accidental convictions from occurring as possible.

We have a highly refined, well-oiled and sharp-eyed justice department ready to catch any mistakes that happen to fall through. Just like with any major operation, whether it be for surgery or for a military maneuver, there will always be a chance for error.

To regard a system as wholly perfect and as impossible to fail would just be naïve and outright foolish. There is always the possibility of death during surgery, but that is what medical school is for, to educate and prevent that from occurring.

There is always the chance of civilian casualties in a combat situation, but that’s why the military and the police drill relentlessly to prevent situations like that from happening.

And that’s why there are so many systems of appeals for death row inmates, so many routes for them to go through, so that if they truly are innocent, as they claim, they can be cleared. Too often in these modern times we worry — fear, even, the ends. If it even seems risky, we shy away from it.

A mistake in surgery or a mistake in combat can be instantaneously disastrous. A mistake in the legal system always has the chance to be caught. Instead of shying away from a gory proposition, hiding behind scant possibilities and hoping for another, easier route, we should be heading towards it with confidence in our ability to do things right. If we aren’t confident, then all that means is that we need to fix the means, not the end.

Perry is an icon for this steadfast defiance in the face of doubt. He has full confidence in how our legal system works.

“They get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they even go to the Supreme Court of the United States if that’s required,” Perry said.

The same can’t possibly be said for people convicted of the death penalty in China, who have for the last several years been one of the targets of choice for various civil liberties groups. Our criminal justice system, although not perfect, is truly held to the highest standard, and death-row inmates are always given the chance to appeal the fate that they deserve.

But do they deserve it? Perry certainly thinks so.

“In the state of Texas, if you come into our state, if you kill one of our children, you kill one of our police officers, you commit another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice and you will be executed,” Perry said.

Perry only needs to point to his impressive 234 person execution record to show how well he’s followed through on this promise. We need a steadfast man like Perry who is hard on crime and hard in his resolve to stand by his position on crime, as he showed earlier this year in his refusal to stay the execution of a Mexican national successfully convicted of raping and murdering a San Antonio teenager.

Perry has a long campaign trail ahead of him. People will always try him on his beliefs, as we all are tried every day.

People will try and bust him down, paint him as vile and evil for supplying justice to those too weak to do it themselves. Others will decry him as an uncouth monster with no regard of civil rights.

But Perry should pay no mind to them. The rapists, killers, and terrorists of the world deserve to pay for their crimes. We cannot continue to let them believe they can escape their due.

And with Perry at the helm, we can always be sure it will be paid in full.

James Wang is a history freshman and may be reached at [email protected].

126 Comments

  • More Politically Correct blah blah blah. What should we do? Be like us here in CA and add to the massive debt by financially supporting murderers for life? How would Mr. Wang feel if someone had killed his mother/father/spouse/child? Easy to mouth the "popular" idealism…however, spouting that tired rhetoric doesn't make an intelligent argument.

    • Troy Davis: Worldwide anti death penalty deceptions, rightly, failed

      "Smoke and mirrors" – that is what the federal judge called Davis' innocence claims, after he held the innocence evidentiary hearing order by the US Supreme Court,

      Innocence Deceptions and the Anti Death Penalty Movement
      Dudley Sharp, [email protected]

      The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are a legendary part of their strategy.

      1) Troy Davis: Misleading anti death penalty campaign http://homicidesurvivors.com/2011/09/18/troy-davi

      contd

  • Mr. Wang, if we were serious about deterring murder, and rape (which is no longer a capital offense) we would stop creating the conditions. But we're not interested in doing that, are we? You'll notice it's called capital punishment? That's because those without the capital get the punishment.

    • There's no excuse for committing capital murder, regardless of economic condition.

      Very few wealthy folks commit capital murder.

      99.9% of poor folks don't commit capital murder.

    • There's no excuse for committing capital murder, regardless of economic condition.

      Very few wealthy folks commit capital murder.

      99.9% of poor folks don't commit capital murder.

  • Mr. Wang, if we were serious about deterring murder, and rape (which is no longer a capital offense) we would stop creating the conditions. But we're not interested in doing that, are we? You'll notice it's called capital punishment? That's because those without the capital get the punishment.

  • Todd Willingham was possibly innocent. He was executed on Perry's watch after the results of an arson investigation that has widely been determined botched and deeply flawed. This is pretty well known and has been thoroughly documented in the mainstream media as well as publicly supported by arson investigators nationally. Even if Willingham was hypothetically still guilty, the poor investigation should have warranted a re-trial at the least. Moreover, the Innocence Project has exonerated more than 100 people from death row — 100 innocent who would have been executed without their efforts. Who knows how many more are, or will be, sitting on death row despite their innocence, or at least a reasonable doubt. Our legal system is better than China, sure, but that's not always saying so much.

    And no, our criminal justice system is not held "to the highest standard." Please do some research on assault and sexual abuse in prisons and take off your blinders.

    • John:

      9 folks have been removed from death row because of DNA exclusion, not 100.

      Gerald Hurst's report stated that there were flaws in the evidence – a not uncommon claim when seeking commutation. The appellate courts also reviewed Hurst's report and did not stop the execution of Willingham.

      Hurst has since said that:

      Gerald Hurst states: “I never had a case where I could exclude arson,” “It’s not possible to do that.”(1)

      (1) "Family’s Effort to Clear Name Frames Debate on Executions", John Schwartz, New York Times, October 14, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/15execution….

      • It may not be possible to ever exclude arson but that doesn't mean you automatically charge any survivors of a house fire with arson.

        If the original investigators for the Willingham fire had been competent, they would have concluded that there were no physical signs of arson, and the fire was accidental or of undetermined origin. Willingham would have never been arrested.

        If you read the trial transcripts, it was a witch trial featuring court-appointed lawyers who believed Willingham was guilty and put on a lousy defense, a pro-prosecution judge, police who coerced witnesses to lie to incriminate Willingham, incompetent fire investigators and a justice-be-damned, win-at-any-cost prosecutor.
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-

        • Exactly, Tim. It's possible Willingham torched the house. However, there are many professionals who believe the investigation was done poorly. Should an irreversible sentence be inflicted upon an individual in this situation?

          And I indeed misspoke about the Innocence Project. They have exonerated more than 100 people with DNA evidence in sum, including death row and non-capital crimes.

        • Tim:____I read the trial transcript, the forensic reports and the police/witness statements, as well as much additional material.________My point about not being able to exclude arson wasmade because some folks wrongly claim Wilingham innocent.____The case for Willinghma's guilt is solid.____But there was physical signs of arson. You are likely mot aware of them.____Remember, the originial investiagtors had all of the evidence to actual view. None of those criticising them, recently, had that evidence to look at.____As you may know, the state forensics groups, today, stand by their finding for arson.____It is not at all unusual for a defense attorney to say their client was guilty, particularly after the client has been executed and in the context that most defense attorneys know that 95% or so of their clients are guilty. It is reality.________

          contd

          • Where are these additional signs of arson that you claim? If they weren't in the trial transcripts then they aren't relevant because that is what was used to convict.

            About 10 fire experts eliminated every one of the 20 arson indicators as junk science or folklore.
            The prosecution also failed to account for the accelerant containers. If Willingham spread so much around, where was the large container or several small containers that held the accelerant?

            Beyond the flawed arson investigation, the prosecution was mainly based on supposedly suspicious behavior of Willlingham during and after the fire. If you read the initial police interviews and trial transcripts, you can see how the witnesses changed their stories at trial to make Willingham seem guilty.

            Everything was interpreted in the most negative light possible for Willingham. They made a big deal about Willingham moving his car away from the house but that is a logical thing to do. If the car caught fire, it could have exploded and made the situation worse. Also if Willingham planned the fire, why didn't he move the car before he set the fire?

            The same thing for his complaining about his missing dart set in the ruins. If he planned to set the fire, he could have stuck that in his car trunk ahead of time.

            • Yes, they were in the trial transcript. Why don't you read it. Clealry, you have not.

              Berton doth protest too much, me thinks

  • Todd Willingham was possibly innocent. He was executed on Perry's watch after the results of an arson investigation that has widely been determined botched and deeply flawed. This is pretty well known and has been thoroughly documented in the mainstream media as well as publicly supported by arson investigators nationally. Even if Willingham was hypothetically still guilty, the poor investigation should have warranted a re-trial at the least. Moreover, the Innocence Project has exonerated more than 100 people from death row — 100 innocent who would have been executed without their efforts. Who knows how many more are, or will be, sitting on death row despite their innocence, or at least a reasonable doubt. Our legal system is better than China, sure, but that's not always saying so much.

    And no, our criminal justice system is not held "to the highest standard." Please do some research on assault and sexual abuse in prisons and take off your blinders.

  • At first I thought this was a serious article, but then I caught this sentence and understood you were just joking:

    "We have a highly refined, well-oiled and sharp-eyed justice department ready to catch any mistakes that happen to fall through. "

  • Todd Willingham was executed based on phony investigation. Fire investigators rarely have any scientific training whatsoever. They point to flash burns and think they are evidence of arson. The New Yorker had an article on this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090

    "The men scanned the walls for soot marks that resembled a “V.”… Vasquez later testified that multiple origins pointed to one conclusion: the fire was “intentionally set by human hands.”

    "Still, many arson investigators believed that what they did was more an art than a science—a blend of experience and intuition.

    Here's a summary of what is described in more detail in the article:

    "In an attempt to figure out what happened, prosecutors spent $20,000 to hire experts, including Lentini, to start a fire in a similarly built condemned house next door to the Lewis home. The experiment became known widely in the arson investigation field as the "Lime Street fire" for the street where the house was on.

    The fire was ignited in a couch without using accelerants, but the living room exploded in flames in less than five minutes anyway. When the fire was put out, authorities found streaks on the floor that resembled the "pour patterns" in the Lewis house that had been declared the product of arson."

    Willingham was innocent. Rick Perry denied the stay of execution for an innocent man. Please understand this.

  • We make the the rules and we break them. No one is God to decide who's life should end or continue. WE ALL white, black, blue, green or yellow do not have control of our lives for we are not the creator. Our lives are leased to us by God. He gives us life and takes it when our contracts come to an end. I believe there should better ways for justice to be served. Troy's life may have been ended yesterday but did it bring back to life the officer he was accused of killing? NO Did the family of thelate officer get some relief?Probably not. The grief and pain will continue for eventhough the court system or people like Govenor Perry will say "justice has been served". Justice? What is Justice? I could ONLY understand if killing one person brings back to life another but thta has never been the case. We talk of human rights. We go invade other countries for the sake of equality or human rights or freeing the people when in our country, YES OUR COUNTRY we execute the innoncent ones.I am not saying the guilty should not be punished but i believe there should be a better way of punishing them rather than the Dealth Penalty.

    • Jesus never rejected the death penalty.

      In fact, he reinforced its use.

      God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

      This is a New Testament command, which references several of the same from the OT.

      Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

      contd

      • contd

        Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

        It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important.

        contd

        • contd

          Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

          Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

          The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

          No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

          contd

          • contd

            God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35….

            For murder, there is no mitigation from a death sentence.

            Saint Paul, in his hearing before Festus, states: “if then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die.” Acts 25:11.

            St. Augustine: “The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, for the representative of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice.” The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21

            many more

  • contd

    Your PBS link is important, particularly in the discussion section, where I correct muck of the misinformation.

    There is zero evidence of coerced witnesses in this case.

    In fact one of the earliest eye witnesses, who saw Willingham unloading things from the house, while the childrne burned, was blown off by the police.

    The night before his execution, Willingham confessed to his parents that he never tried to save his children, as opposed to all the lies he told about trying to save them.

    His oldest child was found in his bed, the bed he said he was taking a nap in. She died of smoke inhilation at the hospital. Makes you wonder why he didn't save her, doesn't it? It should.

    • Willingham may have lied about going in the twins room and trying to save them but that doesn't make him guilty of arson or wanting to murder his children.

      The 2 year old was not in Willingham's bed when he woke up. She wandered there after he went elsewhere. There were two entrances to that bedroom, so she would have come in the other entrance. The house was filled with smoke so visibility was near zero.

      The prosecution had no reasonable motive for the murders. They claimed the children took time away from his beer drinking and dart playing. He married his wife 3 months before the fire because he wanted to do right by the children. He knew what he was getting into. If he wanted to leave, he could have just left. Texas didn't pursue deadbeat dads in those days.

      Without the finding of arson, there would never have been an indictment so the flawed arson investigation was key.

      • Tim Berton writes:

        "Willingham may have lied about going in the twins room and trying to save them but that doesn't make him guilty of arson or wanting to murder his children."

        No it doesn't, but . . .

        The point was he didn't try to save any of them, one of which was in his bed, where he said he was and where the fire never entered.

        He lied about all of the efforts to rescue his children, at length, then he pretended to want to get back in the house.

        He lied consistently, about everything.

        You probably didn't hear about this specific lie and his admission of it, because that is how these anti death penalty deceptions work – Don't tell the gullible people the truth – they'll believe anything we say.

        That's why I listed some of the most common case deceptions by the anti death penalty folks – it's a well known pattern, by those who are active in the debate.

        • I knew about Willingham's confession that he didn't really try to save the children. I believe that is on the Frontline site. He woke up in a smoke-filled house, panicked and ran out to save himself.

          At worst, Willingham was a coward for not risking his life to reenter the house to try and save his children. That still isn't evidence of arson or intent to murder.

          Fightfighters urge people never to reenter a burning home so Willingham did exactly what he was supposed to.

          FEMA says

          "Stay out once you are safely out. Do not reenter. Call 9-1-1. "
          http://www.fema.gov/hazard/fire/fire_during.shtm

          It's incorrect that he "lied consistently, about everything."

          His story fits how a house fire behaves as determined by the fire experts, not the flawed original arson investigation.

          If you register, you can view the NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations online and use it to debunk each of the 20 arson indicators in the original arson investigation.

          If Willingham's lawyers had put up a decent defense, they would have used the 1992 edition to challenge the expertise of the state's arson investigators and undercut some of their evidence.

          • Tim there was no fire in the bedroom or the kitchen. Amber was in that bedroom, with Willingham.

            I know, I know, it is much more important to follow fema's advice than to make any attempt to save your children, as they burn alive.

            Good call. Love to have you as a dad.

  • James writes:

    "We have a highly refined, well-oiled and sharp-eyed justice department ready to catch any mistakes that happen to fall through. Just like with any major operation, whether it be for surgery or for a military maneuver, there will always be a chance for error."

    By far the greatest risk to innocents, under the control of the justice system, is not properly controlling known violent offenders.

    Likely, 28,000 additonal innocents have been murdered, by those we know who have murdwered before – recidivist murderers, since 1973.

    Possibly, up to 100,000 addtional innocents have been murdered during that same period, by parolees, probationers or others so released and under "government supervision".

    There is no clear case of an innocent executed in the US, at least since the 1930's.

  • Tim Berton writes:

    "The 2 year old was not in Willingham's bed when he woke up."

    You don't know that. Did you know in one of Willingham's many accounts, that he said Amber woke him up and he told her to get out of the house on her own while he went to save the twins?

    Of ocurse you didn't know that because you've only read the anti death penalty side.

    So, now that we know, he never tried to save the twins, we know he intentionally and knowingily abadonded her, a two year old, to her own devices to escape from the fire, when all he had to do was pick her up and exit the fire.

    Hmmm.

    Or, she was napping in his bed with him, he left her there and started the fire, took as many of his treasured belongings out of the house, treasures not including his children, and then he walked out to watch his handywork, as witnesses described.

    • Was there any evidence at trial that Willingham removed items from the house before the fire stated?

      If he was going to set a fire, he would have taken his beloved dart set, put it in the trunk of his car and moved his car away from the house before setting the fire. He did none of that.

      • Tim:

        I would have to re read the transcripts about that. But he really was sad about his dart board.

        An alleged original crime sceen witness has recently given a statement to police, stating that he and a friend both saw Willingham taking stuff from the house, as it burned and placing that material in his car.

        The supportive evidence is that he drove his car away from the house as the children burned.

        Car, dartboard.

        He didn't give a statement at the time, because the police blew him off, when he approached them.

        Much more credible than those folks who say, after the execution, oh I know hwe was innocent.

        Statement available through Corsicana Police Dept.

        Willingham wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. It would not have been surprising at all that he was just concentrating on murdering the kids and his acting to come and after he lit the fire, went, "oh, man, I really need to save some of my stuff!"

  • Tim writes:

    "The prosecution had no reasonable motive for the murders." Really?

    Have you never heard of a husband hurting the children when the wife threatened to leave? Happens all the time, inclusive of murders, as here.

    " No motive?! Get rid of the kids. They're bothering me. Just because Willingham denied it, doesn't mean that wasn't the motive. Have fathers "without motive" murdered their children? Or have father's with known, violent tendencies ever murdered their children? It's not uncommon for violent people to murder, with no motive. They're just mean."

    " . . . what about the money issues at Christmas, non working dad, working mom. Poor. Has that ever caused stress within a family? Have fathers "without motive" murdered their children under those circumstances? Or under much less stress?" " It's not uncommon for violent people to murder, with no motive. They're just mean. "

    From: http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/04/cameron-t

    • His wife denied that they fought the night before the fire or that she threatened to leave him.

      The conviction for murder was based mainly on the flawed evidence of arson, hearsay from the mentally-ill jailhouse snitch (who later recanted) and Willingham's behavior during and after the fire.

      The prosecutor's closing arguments didn't even mention any motive.

      • Tim:

        Some of my posts have not been coming through. I responded to this a few days ago.

        Willingham's wife has stated that Todd confessed to her that he murdered the children.

        In addition, it is common for battered women to deny that they have been battered and to offer up defenses for their barterers. This is well known.

        Todd, Stacy and Stacy's family members have all confirmed that he was a wife beater.

        contd

  • Tim writes:

    "The prosecution had no reasonable motive for the murders." Really?

    Have you never heard of a husband hurting the children when the wife threatened to leave? Happens all the time, inclusive of murders, as here.

    " No motive?! Get rid of the kids. They're bothering me. Just because Willingham denied it, doesn't mean that wasn't the motive. Have fathers "without motive" murdered their children? Or have father's with known, violent tendencies ever murdered their children? It's not uncommon for violent people to murder, with no motive. They're just mean."

    " . . . what about the money issues at Christmas, non working dad, working mom. Poor. Has that ever caused stress within a family? Have fathers "without motive" murdered their children under those circumstances? Or under much less stress?" " It's not uncommon for violent people to murder, with no motive. They're just mean. "

    From: http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/04/cameron-t

  • Tim Berton writes:

    "At worst, Willingham was a coward for not risking his life to reenter the house to try and save his children."

    Oh, Tim, as you well know:

    At worst, Willingham is a nasty murderer of 3 of his own innocent children, who did so in an evil attempt to destroy his wife who was going to leave him or in an effort to so destroy her, emotionally, that she would chose not to leave him.

    Somehow, you left that out of your "worst" considerations.

    • The theory that Willingham murdered his children to hurt his wife or get her to stay with him is gross speculation. Was that even introduced in the first part of his trial?

      Such a wild theory does not even come close to being certain beyond a reasonable doubt.

      You mentioned above "As you may know, the state forensics groups, today, stand by their finding for arson."

      They do that for political reasons, especially to protect Governor Perry as well as their reputation.

      To officially admit Manuel Vasquez's report for the Willingham fire was completely flawed would mean the rest of Vasquez's 1200-1500 cases could be faulty as well and might have to be reexamined.

      Their position is untenable because the Texas State Fire Marshals use the NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, and it contradicts Manuel Vasquez's report.

  • Tim Berton writes:

    "At worst, Willingham was a coward for not risking his life to reenter the house to try and save his children."

    Oh, Tim, as you well know:

    At worst, Willingham is a nasty murderer of 3 of his own innocent children, who did so in an evil attempt to destroy his wife who was going to leave him or in an effort to so destroy her, emotionally, that she would chose not to leave him.

    Somehow, you left that out of your "worst" considerations.

    • Here's my rebuttal to your 7 opinions:

      1. Willingham's wife denied he hit her when she was pregnant. Even if he did, there was no evidence that he intended to abort the children. That issue was not raised until the penalty phase, after he had been convicted.

      He married her 3 months before the fire to do right by the children. He visited his former parole officer to show how he had got his life on track, and proudly showed photos of his children.

      2. Willingham's injuries were consistent with those in pre-flashover fires. The 10 or so fire experts who reviewed the case agree on that.

      3. That is not what the analysis stated. It stated that his blood carbon monoxide level was normal for a smoker. Again, that is consistent for a pre-flashover fire where levels of carbon monoxide are low. Willingham was outside when flashover occurred.

      4. A polygraph is pseudoscience and not admissible in most courts. A defendant would have to be crazy to take one.

      5. Willingham may have abused his wife but that is not evidence he committed arson or harmed his children, Many men beat their wives but never harm their children.

      There is no good evidence that he made vicious attacks on animals. There was hearsay evidence that Willingham claimed he killed a dog but perhaps it was self defense. Hearsay is weak evidence.

      6. “You're not the one who was supposed to die” could be interpreted in several ways. Willingham may have meant that he should have been rescued his daughter. He may have said the same thing to his other 2 children as well and not been overheard.

      7. The house had two refrigerators, and one was always blocking the back door. The defense brought that out at trial and one of the original investigators (Fogg) said the the refrigerator blocking the door was never an issue.

  • Tim Berton writes::

    Here's my rebuttal to your 7 opinions:

    1. Willingham's wife denied he hit her when she was pregnant. Even if he did, there was no evidence that he intended to abort the children. That issue was not raised until the penalty phase, after he had been convicted.

    sharp Willigham wrote her a letter apologizing for his brutality, which was well know by many others. A battered women denying she has been batterred is quite common.

    Berton He married her 3 months before the fire to do right by the children. He visited his former parole officer to show how he had got his life on track, and proudly showed photos of his children.

    sharp Parolees often say how they are back on track, soon before they end up back in jail. No suprise.

    Berton 2. Willingham's injuries were consistent with those in pre-flashover fires. The 10 or so fire experts who reviewed the case agree on that.

    sharp Willingham admitted he never tried to save the kids, remember. The burns were self inflicted. See doctors report at hospital.

    contd

    • contd

      Berton 3. That is not what the analysis stated. It stated that his blood carbon monoxide level was normal for a smoker. Again, that is consistent for a pre-flashover fire where levels of carbon monoxide are low. Willingham was outside when flashover occurred.

      sharp Read the full report. But, as we know he never tried to save the kids, that would mean he went inside the house to get other things, like his belongings. His interest was in murdering the kids, not saving them. He was saving his stuff.

      Berton 4. A polygraph is pseudoscience and not admissible in most courts. A defendant would have to be crazy to take one.

      sharp: I agree. But, it is of interest, for all.

      Berton 5. Willingham may have abused his wife but that is not evidence he committed arson or harmed his children, Many men beat their wives but never harm their children.

      sharp And bad men murder their children, as well, as we all know.

      contd

      • contd

        berton There is no good evidence that he made vicious attacks on animals. There was hearsay evidence that Willingham claimed he killed a dog but perhaps it was self defense. Hearsay is weak evidence.

        sharp It was direct testimony of a witness, as I recall. He was brutal to people.

        Berton 6. “You're not the one who was supposed to die” could be interpreted in several ways.

        sharp "Supposed to die" is the important term. Others were supposed to die, not Amber. The others were the twins. How you could have missed that? "Supposed" as in as intended.

        Berton 7. The house had two refrigerators, and one was always blocking the back door. The defense brought that out at trial and one of the original investigators (Fogg) said the the refrigerator blocking the door was never an issue.

        sharp I agree. He could have always gotten out of the windows in his bedroom and the other room without going through the fire and taken Amber with him, but he didn't

        He just sat outside and watched them burn, after removing his stuff.

      • 2-3. The doctor's report did not say the injuries were self-inflicted. A doctor could not know that because they were not there to witness how he got the injuries.

        You seem to be confusing carbon monoxide and smoke, they are very different. Carbon monoxide is an invisible gas, very different from smoke.

        The 10 or so fire experts agree that Willingham's injuries are perfectly consistent with his story that he awoke to a smoke-filled house and exited the house.

        You claim he went in the house to get possessions during the fire but present no evidence of that. Where were the things he removed from the house?

        He later claimed that his prized dart set was stolen from the ruined house. One would expect that would have been something he would have removed before he set the fire.

        You are simply rejecting everything but the state's version of what happened. The state's case was blown away by real fire experts like Dr. Hurst and Dr. Beyler who found no physical evidence of arson.

        • Agian, I responded to this several days ago.

          My apologies, one of the police investigators thought the burns were self inflicted.

          Now, of course, we know that to be true, as Willingham has confessed that he never made any effort to save the children.

          That goes to show how biased those investigators are, to try and make it seem an accident. They we all wrong about Willingham's injuries. It is as if those 10 experts that you referenced were only working for Willinghams defense and having no interest in the truth.

          contd

  • Another reply to Berton:

    Berton: If competent fire investigators had been on the Willingham fire originally, it would have been declared to be accidental or undetermined because there was no physical evidence of arson. Willingham never would have been indicted or arrested.

    Sharp: Totally untrue and you have zero evidence to support that. You seem completeley unaware that the two investigators were constantly taking all the courses necessary to keep up to date on forensic fire investigation. In addition, you seem unaware that the two jurisdicitons involved in investigating the fire, still, today, with all reports, find for arson.

    At most, you can say that there would have been dueling experts and with all the evidence we have today, the verdict, most likely, would still be guilty.

    sharp: All of thosenwly critical of the fire forensics, today, never were at the scene of the crime and, obvioulsy, did not investagate the fire. They may have all found it to be arson, if that fire were, today. None of us can possibly know, except that we do know those groups who actually investigated the fire still find for arson.

    contd

    • contd

      Very important, as well, Wiilinghm's defense attorney says he was definitely guilty.

      Berton:The Texas State Fire Marshal's office has some interesting statistics on residential fires. In 2000, 12.6% of residential fires in Texas were considered incendiary/suspicious. In 2010, just 5.5% of residential fires in Texas were considered incendiary/suspicious.

      Sharp: incendiary/suspicious, as the Willingham fire would have been found.

      Berton: As scientific methods for fire investigation become more widely adopted and old, poorly trained investigators retire, the number of fires considered to be arson has dropped dramatically.

      sharp: or very well trained investigators, as was the case in the Willingham case, but with more updated forensic science knowledge. Very important, I agree.

      • The fact that Willingham's defense lawyers say he was definitely guilty is a huge problem in itself.

        His one attorney has become the cheerleader for the prosecution. He also seems to have violated attorney-client privilege, which does not expire on the death of the client. I would not be surprised if Willingham's relatives sue him for that or for slander. Texas has a weird law about slandering the dead.

        Willingham's defense was horrible during trial and probably even more horrible during his 12 year appeals process. The defense just made little effort at trial and during appeal.

        Fire expert Gerald Hurst got involved at the request of Willingham's pen pal and a relative, not his lawyers.

        His lawyers never apparently bothered to fact check Vasquez's testimony, such as his claim that he never made an error and "almost all" of his 1200-1500 cases were arson. They could have obtained his case files to determine his percentage of arson findings. If if was closer to 50%, the overall rate for the Fire Marshal's office, that would have been perjury and grounds for a new trial.

  • Another reply to Berton:

    Berton: If competent fire investigators had been on the Willingham fire originally, it would have been declared to be accidental or undetermined because there was no physical evidence of arson. Willingham never would have been indicted or arrested.

    Sharp: Totally untrue and you have zero evidence to support that. You seem completeley unaware that the two investigators were constantly taking all the courses necessary to keep up to date on forensic fire investigation. In addition, you seem unaware that the two jurisdicitons involved in investigating the fire, still, today, with all reports, find for arson.

    At most, you can say that there would have been dueling experts and with all the evidence we have today, the verdict, most likely, would still be guilty.

    sharp: All of thosenwly critical of the fire forensics, today, never were at the scene of the crime and, obvioulsy, did not investagate the fire. They may have all found it to be arson, if that fire were, today. None of us can possibly know, except that we do know those groups who actually investigated the fire still find for arson.

    contd

  • contd

    berton: He later claimed that his prized dart set was stolen from the ruined house. One would expect that would have been something he would have removed before he set the fire.

    sharp: or after, as the witness said. His was planning three murders and, somehow, forgot about his dartboard. Who could have known?

    berton: You are simply rejecting everything but the state's version of what happened. The state's case was blown away by real fire experts like Dr. Hurst and Dr. Beyler who found no physical evidence of arson.

    sharp:No, I reviewed all the evidence and came to the most probable conclusion, based upon all the evidence. it couldn't be blown away by them, as has been demonstrated. Read the links I provided

  • contd

    berton: He later claimed that his prized dart set was stolen from the ruined house. One would expect that would have been something he would have removed before he set the fire.

    sharp: or after, as the witness said. His was planning three murders and, somehow, forgot about his dartboard. Who could have known?

    berton: You are simply rejecting everything but the state's version of what happened. The state's case was blown away by real fire experts like Dr. Hurst and Dr. Beyler who found no physical evidence of arson.

    sharp:No, I reviewed all the evidence and came to the most probable conclusion, based upon all the evidence. it couldn't be blown away by them, as has been demonstrated. Read the links I provided

  • This article is written by a college freshman who apparently has not researched the Death Penalty or state-sponsored killing. As for Mr. Dudley Sharp, he is an anti-intellectual pro-death advocate (with no experience in the justice system or academics) and should identify himself as such.

  • Dr. Shaulis: Touche! I support the DP, but not because I'm some pro-Perry nut, but because I think being anti-death penalty is no more a sign of enlightened compassion than being anti-abortion. I'm pro- both of these. There are serious costs associated with a life-prison term, and I'm not convinced that subjecting an inmate to a life of rape, humiliation and degradation isn't more cruel (and ultimately expensive) than outright killing him. As citizens none of us have a taken a vow to not put a man to death and there is no moral code that demands such. (Unless one uses the Bible and that's tenuous at best,) At the least, ( if one holds to such things,) we have an ethical duty to be merciful. I think the DP is exactly that — quick and painless. IMHO

    • Alex: One big problem with the DP is when the wrongly convicted are executed, as in the Willingham case.

      Despite all the numerous appeals, Willingham was still executed despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson.

      Perry, the courts, and the parole board had a report from a leading fire expert, Dr. Gerald Hurst, saying there was no evidence of arson, but they let the execution go forward. That's not how "beyond a reasonable doubt" is supposed to work.

      Had competent fire investigators been on the case at the start, Willingham never would have been arrested or indicted.

      • Berton's assesment is dead wrong.

        At the time of Willingham's execution, there was only one report challenging the forensics in the case and it never said it wasn't arson.

        The appellate courts would stop the execution after seeing that report.

        • The report from fire expert Dr. Gerald Hurst was submitted before Willingham's execution. It said there was no physical evidence of arson, and the original investigators made "many critical errors."

          Here's the report: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-

          Had a real fire expert, such as Dr. Hurst investigated the Willingham fire in 1991, he would have found the fire to be accidental or undetermined. Willingham never would have been indicted.

          • Tim:

            I read the report. Hurst sent it to me.

            As you know, Hurst never excluded arson.

            Furthermore, having access to the real evidence, the house, he certainly may have found for arson and Willingham may still have been executed.

            A review of Hurst, from interview for Trial by Fire

            p 15 Without having visited the fire scene, (fire expert Gerald) Hurst says, it was impossible to pinpoint the cause of the blaze. But, based upon the evidence, he had little doubt that it was an accidental fire—one caused most likely by the space heater or faulty electrical wiring.

            REPLY: "IMPOSSIBLE." Keep that in mind.

            "Impossible" to pinpoint. But, "(Hurst) had little doubt it was an accidental fire". "impossible to pinpoint the cause". But, Hurst says it's "most likely" that "the space heater or faulty wiring" was the cause.

            Is "most likely" or "little doubt" scientific, or is it a game of chance, where 20% doubt is little doubt or "most likely" means 51% likely? Dr. Hurst?

            contd

            • Review of Hurst contd

              How does "IMPOSSIBLE" reconcile with "little doubt" or "most likely" the space heater or the electrical wiring reconcile, scientifically? They don't reconcile. The scientific method? Clairvoyant? Soothsayer?

              Dr. Hurst, would that be a 26% vote for space heater, 25% for the electrical wiring and 49% for arson?

              That would give the space heater and electrical wiring a 51% "most likely", over the "less likely" 49% for arson.

              Or are we looking at 34% for heater, 34% for wiring and 32% for arson?

              Dr. Hurst, which scientific method works best?

              contd

              • Review of Hurst contd

                It has been reported that the gas was turned off 4 days prior to the fire. What does that do for Hurt's "most likely", if true? Dr. Hurst? "IMPOSSIBLE?"

                Let's go back to the (maybe) valid criticism of the state "experts" at trial, that imagination, opinion based upon fantasy/bad science and faulty judgement were their calling cards. You know "more likely than not" "most likely". Not science.

                The state arson "experts" agreed that the fire was not caused by the space heater or the electrical wiring.

                Has anyone contradicted their testimony on that topic, based upon the facts? "Impossible."

                p 15 (Gerald) Hurst concluded that there was no evidence of arson, and that a man who had already lost his three children and spent twelve years in jail was about to be executed based on “junk science.”

                REPLY: Remember "Without having visited the fire scene, Hurst says, it was IMPOSSIBLE to pinpoint the cause of the blaze."

                • You have things backwards. The justice system is supposed to work on "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There is no percent certainty assigned to reasonable doubt that but I would want to be at least 99% certain of guilt before convicting someone.

                  The state didn't have "arson experts" they had arson amateurs with no college degrees and no training in the sciences that arson depends on, such as chemistry and physics.

                  Neither was a trained electrician either yet they supposedly found no evidence of electrical shorts but never explained their methods at trial.

                  It is often impossible to pinpoint the cause of a fire. Such fires are designated as of undetermined origin. An official finding that a fire was of undetermined origin would not support a charge of arson.

                  • No, Tim, I had it just right.

                    Defense attorneys are in the best position (other than the criminal) to ascettain the guilt of their clients. It is simply common sense.

                    You are dead wrong on the training of the fire experts at trial. They both had a long history of staying up to date with all the current courses and professional classes for their profession. That information has been presented throughout this debate.

                    Look for it, instaed of making things up. OK?

                • Dudley Sharp said "Remember "Without having visited the fire scene, Hurst says, it was IMPOSSIBLE to pinpoint the cause of the blaze."

                  Hurst already found that there was no physical evidence of arson, so the remaining options were accidental or an arsonist who was so skilled that he or she left no physical evidence.

                  That is not even close to "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

                  Given how the arson investigators were wrong on all 20 of their indicators of arson, how can you even trust that their determinations that there were no electrical shorts?

                  Even if it was arson, you could not rule out that the arsonist was someone other than Willingham. The front door was unlocked because they had lost the key.

                  • No, what Hurst said, is based on his review of the studies, by others, not a review of the crime scene, he did not find evidence for arson, although those who were at the crime scene did.

                    No one is questioning that the standards are much better today.

                    Have you read the Texas Fire Marshall's rebuttal or that of the Corsicana Fire Dept.

                    It appears not, because you can't look at one side, which is all you mention.

                    Hurst is simply wildly speculating with zero evidence. Hurst admits that when he syas it is impossible to determine the origin of the fire.

                    And all he does is speculate on other causes of the fire, but arson, when speculation as to arson is equally as probable, bu Hurst's own words.

                    You can't even see it, even though Hurst admits it.

                    That makes him considerably worse than a sincere professional using the standards of the day.

                    • The only rebuttal I have seen from the Texas Fire Marshal Office is that they stand by their 1991 investigation, not any detailed point-by-point rebuttal like those provided by Dr. Hurst and other fire experts.

                      Dr. Hurst isn't speculating, he is pointing out the actual facts, such as

                      – The fact that aluminum doors can easily melt in non-accelerant fires contrary to what Vasquez claimed.

                      – The fact that crazed glass can occur in non-accelerant fires, contrary to what Vasquez claimed. Crazing occurs when water hits hot glass.

                      – The fact that puddling patterns often occur after flashover in non-accelerant fires, contrary to what Vasquez claimed.

                      The only rebuttal I have seen from the Corsicana Fire Dept. is from investigator Fogg who said

                      "I don't care how many degrees you may have, how many books you may have written, this was a set fire."

                      Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-

                    • Dudley Sharp wrote

                      "Hurst is simply wildly speculating with zero evidence. Hurst admits that when he syas it is impossible to determine the origin of the fire."

                      Dr. Hurst's 2004 report isn't wildly speculating at all. He rebutted all the original investigator's indicators of arson based on the 2004 state of arson science.

                      Dr. Hurst says the actual cause cannot be determined. It may not have been possible even in 1991 with access to the fire scene to determine the cause.

                      That means it was either an accidental fire or an arson that left zero physical evidence of arson. That kind of uncertainty would not even come close to being enough to indict someone for arson and is very far from "beyond a reasonable doubt" required to find someone guilty of arson.

          • You forgot to mention another one of your false claims.

            Tim writes:

            "Despite all the numerous appeals, Willingham was still executed despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

            Only Hurst cam forward before the execution and he couldn't exclude arson.

          • Tim:

            Stop putting forth false information.

            You wrote:

            "Despite all the numerous appeals, Willingham was still executed despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

            You were clearly saying that Willingham was executed " despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

            Tim, this is completely false. It is well known that it was only Hurst who challenged the trial testimony.

            Who is feeding you all your false information and why aren't you fact chekcing it, before putting it forward.

        • I meant to say that none of the appelate courts would stop the execution after viewing Hurst's report.

          Secondly, Berton is wrong on the law.

          The standard on appeal is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

          The burden of proof falls in the convicted party in the appellate process. Willingham had to prove his case and was not even close in doing so.

          • Dudley Sharp wrote "The burden of proof falls in the convicted party in the appellate process. Willingham had to prove his case and was not even close in doing so."

            Dr .Hurst showed there was no physical evidence of arson. That was more than enough to merit a stay of execution to confirm Dr. Hurst's findings because the charge was murder by arson. If there was no arson, there was no murder.

            The courts likely were not scientifically literate enough to digest Dr. Hurst's report in the limited time available.

            What more could Willingham's lawyers have done than show there was no physical evidence of arson? That the foundation of the state's case.

            • Tim:

              Let's be very clear. The courts looked at Hurst's report and it appears Perry did to.

              Obviously, the Hurst report didn't impress any of them enough to stay the execution.

              If you read Hurt's report, it didn't take much scientific literacy to easily understand what he was stating.

              It didn't even come close to meeting a standard to stay the execution, as all the courts agreed, as did Perry.

              (I posted a verison of this some time back and it didn't post).

        • I meant to say that none of the appelate courts would stop the execution after viewing Hurst's report.

          Secondly, Berton is wrong on the law.

          The standard on appeal is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

          The burden of proof falls in the convicted party in the appellate process. Willingham had to prove his case and was not even close in doing so.

        • Sorry, it should have said "The appellate courts would NOT stop the execution after seeing that report."

    • False dichotomy, Alex. We don't have to subject life prisoners to rape and humiliation. We can change that.

      Also, death penalty cases are typically more costly than life imprisonment, due to the rigorous nature of appeals involved.

  • Mr. Wang gives awfully high praise for the death penalty, but fails to acknowledge that the death penalty has proven NOT to deter crime in the slightest. Plus, it actually costs more money to execute a prisoner than to keep them in prison for their entire life. On top of that, studies have shown that the death penalty is racially biased. A black man who kills a white man is 10x more likely to be executed than a white man who kills a black man. How anyone can stand up for such a flawed and hypocritical system in this day and age is beyond me.

    • Regarding deterrence:

      Of course the death penalty deters. A review of the debate.
      Dudley Sharp

      1) Anti death penalty folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death penalty deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some – there is no exception. It is the burden of death penalty opponents to prove that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot.

      2) There have been 27 recent studies finding for death penalty deterrence. A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn't negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10.

      3) No deterrence study finds that the death penalty deters none. They cannot. Anti death penalty columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, "No one argues that the death penaly deters none." Yes, some do, But Zorn is correct, the issue is not "Does the death penalty deter?". It does. The only issue is to what degreee.

      contd

      • 4) About 99% of those murderers who are subject to the death penalty do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course.

        5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death penalty. Individual deterrence exists.

        6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it.

        7) Even the dean of anti death penalty academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death penalty deters .. . but he doesn't believe it deters more than a life sentence. Nos. 4-6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. In addition, the 27 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence.

        contd

        • 8) All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn't deter.

          9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared more innocent lives. If we don't execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths.

          10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life.

          "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

          John McAdams – Marquette University/Department of Political Science

  • contd

    The snitch testified that Willingham confessed about setting the fire. He stated that Willingham told him he made an X pattern with an accelerant in the twins room. Crime scene photos, now lost, confirmed the X pattern on the floor, a pattern which was recorded by a drawing by one of the investigators.

    The X pattern existed and no one informed the snitch about the X pattern, except Willingham.

    I never heard that the snitch recanted, only that he was, now, confused.

    Willingham made up at least two excuses as to why investigators would find an accelerant at the crime scene. One, that his 2 yr old may have knocked over an oil lamp and the other that he spread his cologne through the fire scene.

    Of course, this is an obvious effort to lay some groundwork for a defense because Willingham already knew there was accelerant, because he put it there.

    No motive is necessary under law. But the evidence of his motives were given throughout the trial.

    • The actual pattern was a pentagram or star-shaped pattern, not an X so the jailhouse snitch was wrong. In the Frontline documentary the prosecutor mentions the pentagram pattern.

      Check the basic sources before making things up. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-

      The pattern was easily explained by fire science as caused by "ventilation patterns." That was also discussed in the Frontline documentary.

      There was an oil lamp in the house but it probably had nothing to do with the fire.

      The most likely cause of the fire was either an electrical short or the 2 year old put something flammable too near the gas space heater. It was reported that the 2 year old was fascinated by the flames.

  • Of course, had "Willingham had run back into his burning house and died trying to save his children, he would have been declared a hero, and the fire would probably not have been officially declared an arson. "

    But, instead, he murdered them, saved his stuff, his car and lamented his lost dart board.

    Tim, you may find that norma,l expected behavior for an innocent dad watching his children burn. No one else would.

    Willingham was sitting in the yard, before there were even flames seen coming from the house.

  • ugh.

    No, they wouldn't have found physical evidence. They weren't at the fire scene and never investigated the evidence.

    The two experts that did concluded arson. The arson finding is defended.

    "by Dr. Beyler's own admission, NFPA 921 wasn't published until after the Willingham incident (and trial) occurred. Dr. Beyler says that even though NFPA 921 was well established by 1995, it was not universally acknowledged until more than three years after that."

    The arson occurred in 1992.

    • That's incorrect in two ways.

      1. The Willingham fire occurred in Dec. 1991.

      2. NFPA 921 was first published in 1992, months before Willingham's trial in August 1992.

      If arson investigators Vasquez and Fogg kept up with advances in their field, as you contend elsewhere, they would have gotten a copy of NFPA 921 well before trial and applied it to their testimony.

      If they kept up with advances in their field, they would have realized that their testimony became more and more wrong with new editions of NFPA 921 in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2008 and 2011.

      The Standard of Care in Fire Investigation http://www.firescientist.com/Documents/The%20Stan

      • Tim:

        As you know, none of what you posted conflicts with:

        "even though NFPA 921 was well established by 1995, it was not universally acknowledged until more than three years after that."

        Beyler is making thea ffirmative statement that the statndars were only well established by 1995, but not universally accepted until 1998. The Corsicana fire chief agreed with that assesment.

        Do you have any evidence that such is incorrect, as you stated? No, you do not.

        Another of your false claims.

        I was wrong, the arson was in 12/91, not 1992. My apologies for the error.

        • Dudley Sharp wrote "Beyler is making thea ffirmative statement that the statndars were only well established by 1995, but not universally accepted until 1998. The Corsicana fire chief agreed with that assesment."

          So if the Corsicana fire chief agreed that NFPA 921 was the standard by 1998, and If Vasquez and Fogg kept up with the field of arson investigation, as you claim.

          Then no later than 1998, they should have realized their Willingham testimony was all wrong, and they put an innocent man on death row.

          They should have contacted the prosecutor and defense and retracted their testimony that it was an arson. If they had, Willingham would be alive today.

          • Where do you get your info?

            With all the new standards they still find for arson, as of 2011.

            You couldn't have not been aware of that as I posted it several times in our discussions and you never refuted it, because you couldn't.

            These issues have been covered at length by the Corsicana Fire Dept, the Texas Fire Warshall's office and the Texas Forensic Science Commission.

            Do you simply forget details in the discussion which were unchalleneged?

  • Dahn is a silly fellow who has followed me around the web for years, making false accusations and making no contributions to the death penalty discussion, as here.

    My thorough responses to him, here, which demonstrate, once again, that anti death penalty claims are either false or that the pro death penalty positions are stronger. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Crime-Law-Enforcement-

  • contd

    The things he removed from the house were put into the car, as reported by one witness. Willingham's actions, testufied to be others, was that he was worried about the safety of his car, when he should have been trying to save his children.

    I think he forgot about his dartboard because there was just so much stuff to take out of the house. He may also have been distarcted by the calls of daddy, daddy pleas please us.

    As sad as he was about his prized dart board, it is, after all, easier to replace than 3 dead babies.

    If you read my links, I have rejected some of the nonsense by the state.

    However, the case for guilt is considerably stronger than the case for innocence, which you have never been able to overcome, no matter how hard you speculate.

  • Again, I responded to this several days ago.

    What you are saying cannot be confirmed.

    As you well know, actually visiting a crime scene and having the physical evidence to investigate would be a very dfferetn thing than criticizing someone elses investiation, with no acces to the physical evidence.

    I think it more likley, a new investiagtion, would confirm arson and the guilt of Willingham, but neither one of us can know for sure.

    But we do have, today, is:

    1) 1 (possibly 2) eyewitnesses who saw Willingham taking belongings out of the house, at the early stages of the fire.

    2) Other winesses confirming Wilingham's primary concern being his car, as the children burned.

    3) Willingham making at least two excuses as to why an accellerant would be found in the house.

    4) Willingham's defense attorney confirming Willingham's guilt. Not surprising. Any experienced defense attorney would tewll you about 95% of thier ckients are guilty. We would hope the number was at least 99%.

    contd

    • contd

      5) Stacy Willingham (Todd's wife) stating that Willingham confessed.

      6) A jailhouse snitch confirming that Wilingham told him that the accelerant he poured into the twins room was in an X pattern and the investigation found an X pattern in that room. As unstable as the snitch is, the X pattern was there and no one told him about it, except Willingham.

      7) Today we have:

      a) Some 9 forensic fire experts, who wrote their reports as if only working for the defense, stating that it may have been arson or it may have been an accident and it is impossible for us to determine which, and

      b) two state agencies saying that the fire was still arson, based, primarily, on the fact that only they had access to the original physical evidence.

      8) a nasty, wife beating husband, who is a cronic liar and who thought he had a good reason to murder his children.

      9) and much more . . .

      What we have, today, is most certainly a case with an indictment and a trial and, I believe, a solid case for guilt and execution.

      You disagree. Fine by me.

  • Mr. Wang writes:
    "There is always going to be a chance that a man may be accidentally convicted of a crime worthy of the death penalty. However, in the US we have a fail-safe procedure in place to stop as many of those accidental convictions from occurring as possible.

    We have a highly refined, well-oiled and sharp-eyed justice department ready to catch any mistakes that happen to fall through. Just like with any major operation, whether it be for surgery or for a military maneuver, there will always be a chance for error."

    See, here's the thing – if there's a chance for failure, it's inherently "fail-safe" And when you're talking about "fail-geez-we're-pretty-sure-we-got-the-right-guy-probably" as a standard, why execute? Have you ever been so totally sure of the facts of a story that you're literally willing to put someone else's life on the line?

    The other statement quoted – that the justice system is ready to catch any mistakes that fall through – is also patently false. The justice system prevents poor people from proper access (poor people can't afford Rusty Hardin), so your argument is that that a court-appointed lawyer, who likely cannot find a living doing more lucrative or stable legal work and who has to take on as many clients as possible (and turn around the ones he does have as quickly as possible) will take the time and money to file appeal after appeal is ridiculous. Come down to the criminal courthouse downtown – see the representation that people get, and I guarantee you'll change your tune on whether the justice system is adequate for those accused of crimes.

    Yes, we've got great technology now that helps us be more sure that the accused actually committed the crime, but the same arguments you've made here today were also made before we had DNA or fingerprinting evidence. Until we can be absolutely sure that a person committed the crime, there's no reason why we should rush toward an execution.

  • There were also many major problems in other aspects of the Willingham case at trial and during appeals.

    He had very poor lawyers who put up a token defense, calling only two defense witnesses. The defense lawyers failed to get a fire expert to dispute the state's case and didn't use the new manual on fire investigation to discredit the state's arson investigators. The defense failed to ask about the credentials of the secondary arson investigator, Fogg.

    Dr. Gerald Hurst was brought in at the last minute due to the efforts of Willingham's cousin and his pen pal. One of the reasons the court rejected Dr.Hurst's report was that the lawyers failed to include a statement of his qualifications as an expert, another major failure on the part of his lawyers.

    The prosecutor wasn't interesting in justice, just getting a conviction so used tactics intended to inflame the jury, such as photos of the children's burned bodies and a burned Bible from the house as a prop in closing arguments.

    The judge was pro-prosecution because he allowed them to introduce the kind of prejudicial evidence mentioned above. The judge allowed hearsay from a mentally-ill inmate who claimed Willingham confessed to him. Then the judge disallowed testimony of the defense's rebuttal witness because it was hearsay! Many courts bar hearsay as unreliable especially when it comes from inmates trying to get favors from DAs and the police.

    Later, when the mentally-ill inmate recanted his testimony, the prosecutor failed to notify the defense.

    With decent lawyers, a fair prosecutor and a fair judge, Willingham had a good chance to prevail at trial.

    • Tim:

      First, thank for all your time and efforts with our many exchanges.

      Secondly, Both Willingham's trial and appellate lawyers did a fine job, with what they had to deal with. The courts agree. You won't because he wasn't found not guilty.

      Thirdly, the last minute effort at a stay, Hurst's letter, was not rejected because Hurst's credential were not included. As a matter of law, it was not remotely sufficient enough for a stay, all of which were denied.

      contd

      • contd

        Fourth, you defame the prosecution with an allegation you cannot possibly know or prove, consistent with many othere claims you have made, which have no factual support., all of which harms your credibility, not those who you attempt to harm.

        Fifth, the judge did not violate any rules of evidence, as the appeals court confirms. You simply made it up, again.

        Sixth, as I previously requested, for you to deliver the information to me that the winess recanted his testimony – as I related to you, I can't remeber that occurring, so I asked for proof of that, which you did not deliver.

        Seventh, with all of the updated information, inclusive of the additonal evidence for guilt in this case, a guilty verdict and a death sentnece MIGHT be more likely.

        • 4. Anyone can read the trial transcripts and see how poor Willingham's defense was. They called only 2 witnesses.They never mentioned in closing arguments that Willingham had no motive and was a loving father.

          Anyone can get a copy of the 1992 edition of NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations,which was available well before trial. It has a list of over 30 fire experts who were on the committee that approved the guide.

          Any one of them would have been a good candidate for a fire expert for the defense but Willingham's lawyers couldn't locate a fire expert to discredit the state's investigators. It appears they may have had just one fire expert look at the case and gave up looking after the first one agreed it was arson.

          5. It is a fact that the judge let in a highly-suspect hearsay testimony from a mentally-ill inmate, Johnny Webb, and then barred hearsay testimony from a rebuttal witness for the defense. How is that fair? It is a fact that many courts bar hearsay testimony as it has often proven unreliable.

          6. It is a fact that the mentally-ill inmate Webb later recanted his testimony that Willingham confessed to him. The Frontline documentary included part of his recantation letter.

          'JOHNNY WEBB, Witness: I don't remember. Maybe I did. Maybe it's because what everything I was going through. I told them I was going to recant if someone doesn't help me because they was trying to kill me. You know what I'm saying? Something to put some pressure on somebody to do something to get me out of where I was at."

          Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-

          7. You have it backwards. There is no additional evidence of guilt since the trial, there is much less. All the fire experts contacted, at least nine, agree there was no physical evidence of arson, and the jailhouse snitch recanted his testimony that Willingham confessed.

      • 3. I mention the fact that Willingham's lawyers didn't include Dr.Hurst's credentials as an expert witness in their final appeal to illustrate how poor they were. That was a glaring omission a competent lawyer would not make.

        The court mentioned it in their ruling, so it may have had some effect on their decision.

        Even worse was that the lawyers did not get Dr.Hurst to submit a report. It was Willingham's pen pal and his cousin who convinced Hurst to help.

      • Dudley Sharp wrote: "Both Willingham's trial and appellate lawyers did a fine job, with what they had to deal with. The courts agree."

        That is false. In his final appeal, the Texas court stated that Willingham's lawyers

        – should have used NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations much earlier since it was available in 1992 before the trial

        – should have gotten a fire expert like Dr. Hurst years earlier.

        – should have listed Dr. Hurst's qualifications as a fire expert in the appeal.

        Find it under "Texas' response to the habeas writ" on the Frontline website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-

  • Combine Wang's and Betrtran's opinions and it's about right.

    Wany said we had a good system that catches as many errors, "as possible". Bertrand is right on catching Wang, with his later comment that the sytem is so good as "to catch ANY mistake", which is, of course, untrue.

    No one has ever claimed that any human system can be perfect.

    With the subject death penalty and Perry's remark, we have:

    1) No confirmed case of an innocent executed anywhere in the US, since, at least, the 1930's.

    contd

    • Dudley Sharp claimed: "1) No confirmed case of an innocent executed anywhere in the US, since, at least, the 1930's."

      Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent but executed for murder by arson in 2004.

      There was no physical evidence of arson in the Willingham fire according to at least nine fire experts. The chief witness against Willingham later recanted his testimony about 4 years before the execution.

      The other evidence used at Willingham's trial was the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, such as saying he was a devil worshiper because he had heavy metal band posters on his wall and had tattoos.

      • Tim:

        As you well know, there is zero evidence of Willingham's innocence.

        Arson has never been excluded and never can be.

        • Dudley Sharp wrote: "As you well know, there is zero evidence of Willingham's innocence."

          I know there is no good evidence of Willingham's guilt, far below what is required for guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Arson can never be excluded but the odds are so low that it was arson that they are very far from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

          You can never totally exclude that someone other than Willingham set the fire either. The front door was unlocked. The police never seriously considered other suspects or asked neighbors about suspicious vehicles or persons in the area the morning of the fire.

          According to the Texas State Fire Marshal's statistics, only 5.5% of residential fires were judged to be incendiary/suspicious in 2010. The vast majority of residential fires are not arson.

  • contd

    2) Based upon numerous reviews, inclusive of the New York Times, we may have senteced from 25-40 actual innocents to death row, since 1973, the modern death penalty era. That is about 0.4% of those sentenced to death and with100% of those 0.4% being released upon appeal.

    Or, it is likely the most accurately managed criminal justice sanction in the world, which is, very likely, part of a larger system of due process, pre trial, trials, appeals and clemency/commutations, which is also, likely, the best in the world at protecting actual innocents.

    Does that mean it doesn't have a whole lot of problems? No.

    • Where specifically are you getting your numbers of 25-40 actual innocents sentenced to death row since 1973?

      This site says 138 death row inmates have been exonerated since 1973. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactShe

      It is totally illogical to expect that 100% of those wrongly sentenced to death row have been exonerated before execution. No human system works at 100%.

      The fact remains that Willingham would not have been indicted for murder by arson had competent fire investigators done the initial investigation. Willingham was convicted and executed due to several factors including:

      – The flawed arson analysis
      – Misconduct by prosecutors
      – Pro-prosecution judges
      – Inadequate defense by the court-appointed lawyers

    • Another factor that undercuts your contention that the criminal justice system works well is that a large percentage of the innocents released from death row only got released because of the Innocence Project working against the justice system to get them released. The courts and prosecutors often strongly oppose requests to test evidence for DNA and requests to release all their evidence.

      Too often the justice system is corrupted by prosecutors who stop caring about justice and just want to win at any cost and by police and judges who side with such prosecutors.

  • Do a Google search for Johnny Webb recant, and you will find his recantation.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/39752155/Johnny-Webb-Re

    His recantation letter was dated early 2000 yet in 2004 the court was still listing Webb's testimony that Willingham confessed as a reason for denial of appeal.

    How is it an efficient process when the court is unaware of a recantation it got years earlier? The court also failed to notify the defense of the recantation so they could use it as a basis for appeal.

    • Tim:

      Thank you. I don't recall ever seeing this before.

      I believe written recantations have little weight, unless followed up by cross examination. The most recent example of that is the Troy Davis case, where the recantaions fell apart.

      So the letter, by itself, would not have had any impacy on the courts.

      I will get back to you on your additonal comments. Much of what you say, throughout our exchanges, has been untrue.

      Do you have any confirmations that:

      1) the court is unaware of a recantation and
      2) The court failed to notify the defense of the recantation so they could use it as a basis for appeal?

      I ask, if the court was unaware of the recantation, how is it the court failed to notify the defense of it?

      • The Texas court denied an appeal on the day before Willingham's execution. They specifically mentioned Johnny Webb's testimony as evidence of Willingham's guilt yet he had recanted 4 years earlier.
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-

        Their illogical conclusion was that even if Dr.Hurst was correct, and there was no physical evidence of arson, Willingham still would have been convicted and sentenced to death because of other evidence such as Webb's testimony.

        • Hardly illogical, several of the jurors in the case agree. As I said, repeatedly, there was more than the fire forensics that borught about the guilty verdict and the death sentence.

          Didn't the jurors even say they paid no attention to Webb's testimony? I found that odd, as it was important in its details. But, evidently his testimony may not have been credible.

          • Dudley Sharp wrote: "Didn't the jurors even say they paid no attention to Webb's testimony?"

            I don't remember that. What is your source?

            The court continued to cite Webb's testimony in their denial of appeals so they gave weight to it.

            Without Webb's testimony and no physical evidence of arson there was no decent evidence to convict, just conjecture based on Willingham not going into a burning house to rescue his children and that his some of his actions after their death was not considered normal grieving by nonexperts.

    • I posted this before and don't know what happened to it.

      Thank you. I don't recall seeing this before.

      If the court was unaware of the recantation how was it that they failed to notify the defense ot it?

      Maybe you'll straighten that out and actually confirm if either is true.

      Written recantations have little to no effect without cross examination, that is just part of what blew up the Save Troy Davis campaign.

      • Prosecutors often fail to notify the defense of exculpatory evidence so it is no surprise that they failed to tell Willingham that a major witness against him recanted his testimony.

        The prosecutors in the Willingham case did all sorts of things that the Innocence Project considers misconduct.

        "• Withholding exculpatory evidence from defense
        • Allowing witnesses they know or should know are not truthful to testify
        • Relying on fraudulent forensic experts
        • Making misleading arguments that overstate the probative value of testimony "
        http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Govern

  • Tim:

    Stop putting forth false information.

    You wrote:

    "Despite all the numerous appeals, Willingham was still executed despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

    You were clearly saying that Willingham was executed " despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

    Tim, this is completely false. It is well known that it was only Hurst who challenged the trial testimony, prior to his execution.

    Who is feeding you all your false information and why aren't you fact chekcing it, before putting it forward.

    • I did not say that all nine fire experts examined the case before Willingham's execution.

      Perry should have issued a 30 day stay of execution to have other fire experts confirm Dr.Hurst's report. That was a huge mistake on Perry's part.

      • Tim:

        That is exactly what you said.

        Try reading it yourself:

        ":Willingham was still executed despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

        To help you out, that is equal to:

        "Despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson, Willingham was still executed."

        Sadly, I am not suprised you have no idea what you actually said. You say a lot of things that are supported by the facts.

        The courts and Perry rejected the Hurst report as a reason for a stay, as detailed within many of our exchanges.

        • Read what the Texas court said about Dr. Hurst's report. It's on the Frontline website.

          The court said that even if Dr. Hurst was correct that there was no physical evidence of arson, they would not halt the execution because of the other evidence of Willingham's guilt, especially Johnny Webb's testimony. The court failed to mention that Webb recanted his testimony in 2000.

          It would not have mattered if 9 fire experts or 90 fire experts had submitted reports to the Texas court or to Perry. They often don't use logic or science.

          Check the current Larry Swearingen case where every forensic expert agrees that tissue samples prove that the murder victim was killed when the convicted defendant was in jail. The court won't believe he didn't do it because they can't account for the murder victim's whereabouts for the few weeks between her disappearance and the discovery of her body.
          http://www.thenation.com/article/163034/rick-perr

  • Tim:

    Stop putting forth false information.

    You wrote:

    "Despite all the numerous appeals, Willingham was still executed despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

    You were clearly saying that Willingham was executed " despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

    Tim, this is completely false. It is well known that it was only Hurst who challenged the trial testimony, prior to his execution.

    Who is feeding you all your false information and why aren't you fact chekcing it, before putting it forward.

  • Tim:

    Stop putting forth false information.

    You wrote:

    "Despite all the numerous appeals, Willingham was still executed despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

    You were clearly saying that Willingham was executed " despite all the fire experts who examined the case, at least nine, saying that there was no physical evidence of arson."

    Tim, this is completely false. It is well known that it was only Hurst who challenged the trial testimony, prior to his execution.

    Who is feeding you all your false information and why aren't you fact chekcing it, before putting it forward.

  • Dudley Sharp wrote: "An alleged original crime sceen witness has recently given a statement to police, stating that he and a friend both saw Willingham taking stuff from the house, as it burned and placing that material in his car."

    If the police and prosecutors did not believe the witness claiming Willingham was loading items into his car before the fire back in 1991, then that witness must have been really unbelievable because the prosecutor used all sorts of other highly questionable evidence at trial like saying tattoos of skulls and Heavy Metal posters indicated Willingham was a devil worshiper.

    If Willingham had saved his dart set, why would he complain in front of witnesses that it was lost in the fire or stolen from the burned out house and replace it shortly after the fire? Wouldn't his wife have found it after he was arrested?

    Dudley Sharp wrote: "The supportive evidence is that he drove his car away from the house as the children burned."

    He pushed the car, not drove it. Pushing the car away was a very reasonable thing to do because if the car caught fire and exploded, it would have made the fire worse.

    Dudley Sharp – You seem to ignore reasonable doubt, which is the basis of our justice system.

    One hundred pieces of weak evidence each with a 1% likelihood of being true doesn't mean a defendant is 100% guilty. Weak evidence is not additive in that way.

    All the circumstantial and hearsay evidence was very weak and didn't mean much without the finding of arson by the state's investigators. The physical evidence of arson was the core of the case. Without it,there is no guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because there is a very good chance the fire was accidental.

    • Tim;

      He just “recently” came forward and was unknown until recently.

      There is a police statement on that, if you wish to see it, with the Corsicana Police Dept.

Leave a Comment