Talk:Cameron Todd Willingham

News reports cast doubt on fire investigation

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0504200146apr20,1,1265821.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

I do not have the time to follow this up, but it's hit the news that this man may in fact have been innocent. The alleged murders were the result of a fire, supposedly arson. Experts testified at his trial that it was arson, and it (presumably) followed that Willingham was the only one who could have said it. This scientific testimony was the primary basis of his conviction.

However, it now turns out that the theories these experts used have been discredited, and the fire may not have been arson at all.

A very similar case involving one Ernest Willis, also on death row, resulted in the prisoner being exonerated.

Commitees are being set up and fingers are being pointed. I don't have the patience for detail hunting, but certainly this man's wiki writeup deserves a little more--and perhaps a link in the capital punishment entry under "arguments against." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.132.57 (talk • contribs) 00:13, April 21, 2005 (UTC)

Other evidence

Youve ignored most of the evidence. His abuse, lack of emotion after the death of his children, deciding not to call firefighters after the fire started and sitting in the yard watching the house burn.

I've edited the page to show the other info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smb2a (talk • contribs) 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC) --smb2a

I think this article gives too much weight to Willingham's alleged lack of emotion. Typically the prosecution in cases similar to this can find witnesses willing to testify that the defendant could have been sadder or done more. Some may be willing to lie after being told that there was clear evidence of arson. At any rate, alleged emotional reactions are very unreliable as proof of anything. Not everyone jumps up and down, shouting with glee, when told they won a million dollars. Nor does everyone cry hysterically when faced with some tragedy.

The fact is that there is no credible evidence of arson. Had false evidence not been used, nobody would be discussing Willingham's emotional reactions. --Danras (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the eye witness testimony? Mainly that he crouched in his front yard and watched the house burn rather than run to his neighbors for help. How could his emotional state not be relevent in light of this behavior?

--smb2a 1:12, 18 December 2007

As for the idea that he crouched in his front yard and watched the house burn, many people would go into shock at the sight of a fire that apparently killed their children. He may have thought it was too late to save them. Besides, how reliable is this witness testimony? Some witnesses claimed that his motive was that his children were interfering with his darts games. If that's legitimate, then who knows how many petty things he may have done to annoy that witness? Perhaps, by the logic of those who accused him, the witnesses were trying to send him to prison because he was always borrowing their money, and not returning it, or any other silly reason. --67.193.153.105 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

POV info at the bottom of the page

Whoever keeps doing that, childing insults and swears do not belong here and only weaken your position. Smb2a (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)smb2a

James Grigson additions

I've never heard anybody but Kevorkian called "Dr. Death." Is this information really reliable? Shouldn't there be a direct reference to support if so? RivGuySC (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to locate references. He was reportedly called Dr. Death because he testified at more than 100 sentencing hearings at which inmates were sentenced to death. If he testified at a convict's sentencing hearing, he was almost like the grim reaper as his appearance made it was almost predictable that the convict was going to die. In the movie "The Thin Blue Line," convict Randall Dale Adams complained about the discrepancy between Grigson's superficial examination of himself and the conclusion he gave at Adams' sentencing hearing. The movie's filmmaker originally planned to make a documentary about Grigson. In the book, "Chasing Justice," Kerry Max Cook recounts how the prosecution forced him to see Grigson without his attorney's consent. The prosecution needed Cook to meet with Grigson, however briefly, to provide a basis for Grigson's predictable testimony against Cook. Both Adams and Cook were exonerated. --Danras (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

I'm not sure why {{accuracy}} was added and not {{unreferenced}} was not. The editor who added it did not make a comment here but it seems clear that a lot of guilt-supporting text which was uncited has already been deleted rather than citations added for them. There's not been a corresponding scrub of innocence-supporting uncited text. If this continues we might have some WP:POV or WP:WEIGHT issues. patsw (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by tagged here. 78.34.205.77 (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed. As I mentioned in the edit summary, it all seems to be cited now. If it is not, add the tag back and detail why here. patsw (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Article from The New Yorker magazine: "Trial by Fire. Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?"

Link: Trial by Fire. Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?

Read it for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubican (talk • contribs) 04:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As a template:cite news template: Grann, David (2009-09-07). "Trial By Fire. Did Texas Execute an innocent man?". New Yorker. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

19 pages of advocacy for the point of view that Willingham did not set the fire in 1991. Now, if you are also advocate for the point of view that Willingham did not set the fire, follow these steps:

• Scrub from the article any accurate, but uncited, facts supporting guilt.
• Add liberally from Grann, Grann's sources, and the Innocence Project -- back-stopped by citations.

The result will lead the Wikipedia reader to wonder what sort of dummies the defense, the trial judge, the trial jury, the appeals court, and the governor were to have accepted the original evidence submitted at the trial. A good article is going to include some of the evidence supporting guilt and provide the due weight to the post-execution advocacy of Willingham's innocence. patsw (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The case presented by the New Yorker is very convincing, but that does not mean that the Wikipedia article should completely ignore the evidence for his guilt that was originally presented. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The New Yorker article also completely presents the evidence as presented at the trial. It also talks about how the non-scientific "theories" used by the arson investigators were demonstrated false with the investigation into the Lime Street Fire. Flashovers can make burn and puddle patterns that look like the classic signs of arson. This Wikipedia article should present the evidence that was presented at trial, but also explain how fire investigation at the time was unscientific and how that has been shown in the later years. Kevin143 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To patsw: The above suggestion to "Scrub from the article any accurate, but uncited, facts supporting guilt" reeks of NPOV violations. Why are you suggesting that editors specifically remove (i.e., "scrub") facts that are accurate ... and only when said accurate facts support Willingham's guilt? You are clearly pushing an agenda. And that clearly violates NPOV. And, to Tim Pierce: you reply "agreed" to this suggestion? Why's that? This is hardly the way to produce a decent Wikipedia article. The correct approach is not to remove accurate (but uncited) facts, simply because they support Willingham's guilt. Rather, the preferred approach is to insert an "add citations" tag, or some such. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

I mean that I agree with Patsw that taking such an approach would "lead the Wikipedia reader to wonder what sort of dummies the defense, the trial judge... were to have accepted the original evidence submitted at the trial." It is not acceptable to wipe the article clean of a discussion of the evidence that convicted him and present only the arguments in favor of his innocence. The article will have to address both in an evenhanded manner. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Your initial statement of "Agreed" could easily be interpreted to mean that you agreed with the entirety of patsw's post to which you responded. I agree with the statements made immediately above in your clarification. The article must be even-handed and not favor either guilt or innocence. I am still eager to receive a reply from patsw, however, addressing his/her proposal to purge the article of "guilt pointing" facts. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

Proposal

To support WP:NPOV, either:

1. Add a full "evidence of guilt" section with cites or
2. Drop the "evidence of innocence" section, and leave one sentence calling it a disputed verdict and let the reader read the footnotes for detail. patsw (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Rationale. Since the article was scrubbed of uncited facts supporting guilt and a lot of text added to support innocence, the current article is written with a point of view supporting innocence and gives undue weight to those sources supporting same. patsw (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is there is not one shred of evidence that supports his guilt. That is the issue brought to light in the New Yorker article. By all appearances the evidence that would/should have set him free was ignored. texas has a long rich history of convicting and even executing innocent people. I have spent 40 years living in this state and it's pretty obvious innocent people get executed or just convicted on a routine basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is not one shred of evidence that supports his guilt? Huh? Where on earth did you get that from? At last check, there was a full and fair trial -- supported by cross examination -- in which a jury found Willingham guilty and sentenced him to death. And, furthermore ... said trial, guilty verdict, and death sentence were repeatedly upheld through various appeals. That all seems to me like, umm, evidence that supports guilt. I didn't attend the trial and I wasn't on the jury ... but, I'm just saying. One article, written by one individual, 18 years after the crime -- and 17 years after the trial -- does not, in one fell swoop, overturn all that preceded it ... whether the article is convincing and persuasive or not. There's a process in place. And that process produced much more than "one shred of evidence that supports Willingham's guilt". To claim otherwise ignores clear and plain facts. And devoids your argument of any credibility. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

Furthermore ... you make the following claim: "Texas has a long, rich history of convicting and even executing innocent people. I have spent 40 years living in this state and it's pretty obvious innocent people get executed." This statement is preposterous at best. Please provide the specific names and examples of innocent people executed by Texas. You are clearly privy to information that the rest of the world does not have, and I would be interested to see the names and examples to which you refer. That is, the innocent people that Texas has "obviously and routinely" executed. If these occurrences are both obvious and routine, you should have no trouble providing several specific names, cases, and examples of such. I can't wait to see your list. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

This conversation runs a real risk of turning ugly pretty quickly, but there's no need for that. The main fact of this case is that The New Yorker thought highly enough that there is doubt about the execution of Willingham to print a long piece about the case. That does not overturn a legal conviction. However, if said conviction ever were overturned, its punishment could not be, and that is a point worth considering. It appears from the New Yorker piece, that more than one person connected with the case either had doubts as the investigation and trial unfolded or has doubts now. Whatever our personal opinions may be, this article should present both sides. There was an investigation, a trial, and some sort of legal appeals and appeals for clemency; the appearance of an article 5 years after his execution that casts doubt on the results of those proceedings does not mean they didn't happen. However - that also doesn't mean the conviction and execution were correct, and that point of view should certainly be in the article as well.

On the matter of providing a list of wrongfully executed people, let's not go there, for a few reasons:

1. "Wrongful execution" is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Some people think capital punishment is wrong under any circumstance, so it would be hard to sway them. But there are varying degrees of opinion as to how "bad" a crime must be to merit this ultimate punishment, and we should understand that different editors will have different opinions on this point.
2. Wikipedia is not a court, and it is not our job to decide whether Willingham was innocent or guilty. It is merely for us to present what others have written about the subject.
3. Our personal opinions will necessarily color how we approach the matter, but our ultimate goal should be a neutral article, regardless of those opinions.
4. It is accepted (and yes, I can find citations for this claim) that people are wrongfully convicted of crimes all the time. They are later released, sometimes a dozen or more years later. Furthermore, this happens in death-row cases as well (also supportable by citations). While this does not mean Willingham was wrongfully convicted, there is certainly precedent.
5. The idea that "we cannot cite a case where wrongful execution has happened, therefore this is not such a case" smacks of WP:OSE. It's a logical fallacy. Given that wrongful convictions are documented - even in death-row cases - it is only a matter of time before we make this ultimate mistake, if it hasn't already happened. Death penalty proponents may not want to admit it, but since we are all capable of making mistakes, and since we have documented cases of death-row inmates being exonerated, why should we assume we've always gotten it right? Likewise, death penalty opponents use borderline cases and the possibility that we might get it wrong to argue we should never do it, but that is beside the point of this (or any individual person's) article.

There will likely be an irrefutable case of misapplied justice at some point. Whether this is (or will turn out to be) such a case is not the point of this article; that cannot be settled by a Wikipedia discussion, so it's pointless to try. Our focus is to write a good article, because this is an encyclopedia. It is not a court of public opinion.  Frank  |  talk  14:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it would be impossible at this point to reduce the pro-innocence content of the article, the only way to provide an NPOV and due weight to the innocence supporting content is adding guilt-supporting content in summary form. The important thing is that adding such content is not an invitation to re-argue the case before a jury of Wikipedia readers. patsw (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I can hardly believe what I am reading here. To Frank ... you make a number of points -- some valid, some not. But, we are not here to debate that. (Example: You assume the inevitability of an innocent person being executed, whether in the past or in the future. But, that is your assumption only.) I was asking the prior editor for the names of executed innocents that he/she claims exist both routinely and obviously in Texas. I was not aware of such a list ... and I would like to see whether Willingham's name is on said purported list. To patsw ... it was indeed you who strongly advocated purging this article of correct facts that point to guilt. I still invite you to reply to my post in the above section on this Talk Page (entitled, Article from The New Yorker magazine: "Trial by Fire. Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?"). So, to both Frank and patsw ... yes, this article and its Talk Page conversations do indeed run a real risk of turning ugly pretty quickly, as you state. But, I would also proffer that both Frank and patsw are contributing to said risk by some of your statements posted above. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009

Furthermore ... a concept (and a Newsweek piece) that are both interesting and relevant to this Willingham article: the United States Supreme Court has held that executing an innocent man does not violate the United States Constitution. (See Innocent Until Executed: We Have No Right to Exoneration.) I shall be adding this information and citation into the Willingham article soon. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

My assumption of the inevitability of a mistake being made is not directly related to or presuming that this case is an example. But otherwise, do you presume that as humans we will never make mistakes? There are plenty of documented cases of people convicted and later exonerated...even death-row inmates. If we know that to be the case, the next logical step is that an execution has or will be incorrectly administered. Again - I'm not saying I have an opinion as to this case, but it's hardly fair to say "show me the example" as a means of saying "it has never happened", which is one way of interpreting what I see above. I'm trying to avoid that by saying "it isn't relevant to this article" and "it's a debate that can't be effectively had in this venue so why try?"  Frank  |  talk  18:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To Frank - As I said above, we are not here to debate this particular issue. And as I said above, a prior editor asserted that Texas routinely and obviously executes innocent people. I was asking that editor to provide the purported list of said executed innocents. But ... to reply to your immediately preceding post ... you admit that it is an assumption on your part. Fine. It is an assumption that I do not share. To say, as you put it ... "show me an example" ... is the same as saying, essentially, please provide a source. In other words, your (or anyone's) assumptions hold no place here in Wikipedia. Sourced statements, however, do. So -- yes -- to that extent, I was indeed stating "it only exists if you can show me an example of it" ... meaning, "it can only be reported on Wikipedia if you can back it up with sources". The prior editor seemed convinced that Texas obviously and routinely executes innocent people. I was asking for sources to back up that claim. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Furthermore: You state that "the next logical step is that an execution has or will be incorrectly administered". I disagree that that is "the next logical step". One could easily counter-argue that ... the fact that these innocents are ultimately removed from death row is proof in and of itself that the appellate process works and, thus, that no innocents are indeed executed. Why can't my interpretation be "the next logical step"? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

I made the observation on the talk page that guilt-supporting facts (true, but uncited) were scrubbed from the article. I didn't do the scrub. My edits so far were to add some dates, citations, and to correct a incomplete quote. I'm taking the above as a consensus to add some guilt-supporting evidence with cites as balance for the article. I want to remind editors, that this is not a place to debate, but to reach a consensus on editing an article which serves one goal: informing the reader about Cameron Willingham in a manner that presents multiple points of view consistent with the Wikipedia policies. patsw (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To patsw: Thanks for the clarification. Your intent may have been to make said observation. However, if you go back and re-read your post, it sounds more like you were directing other editors as to how to approach writing this article. Your exact words were: "Now, if you are also advocate for the point of view that Willingham did not set the fire, follow these steps: Scrub from the article any accurate, but uncited, facts supporting guilt. Add liberally from Grann, Grann's sources, and the Innocence Project -- back-stopped by citations." Thus, you intended to say "Here is my observation about this article ...". But what you in fact said was more like "Please do the following things within this article if you feel that Willingham is not guilty". Thanks for the clarification. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Notes

The above reference was added by User  Frank . Regarding the above article ... I am certain that there are many, many, many cases in which innocent people are convicted. I am certain that there are indeed instances where innocent individuals have been exonerated and removed not only from prison, but also from Death Row. But ... that is far different than stating that any innocent person has ever been executed in the USA. Those are two entirely separate issues altogether. As such, the article above is entirely irrelevant. Furthermore ... as I stated above ... the United States Supreme Court has held that executing an innocent person does not violate the United States Constitution. (See the following article that recently appeared in Newsweek: Innocent Until Executed: We Have No Right to Exoneration.) So, while it may be morally repugnant ... it is neither unconstitutional nor illegal. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

What a strange parsing of the actual quote, from the 2-Justice dissent referenced: "[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." This is saying the the court has never held that it would be forbidden to execute a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial...not just any old innocent person. Quite a difference!  Frank  |  talk  02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Quite a difference indeed! What exactly is the strange parsing of which you accuse me? I was certainly not saying that "just any ol' innocent person" can be dragged off the street and be executed. I thought it was rather clear from the context of our prior conversations (leading up to my September 6 posting) that I was referring to "convicted criminals who are on Death Row, get executed, and are later found to be innocent". Quite implicit in my above statements was the notion of convicted criminals (who are later determined to be innocent) ... and not just any average innocent Joe Blow in America (who is neither a criminal nor a convict). Why on earth are you injecting the execution of regular every-day folk "off the street" (without any arrest, accusation, trial, conviction, etc.) into the conversation? That, I would proffer, is a strange parsing indeed ... within the context of the conversations we were having. If we were discussing innocent people generally, I certainly was not aware of that. I thought that the issue we were discussing was: convicted criminals sitting on Death Row who are later exonerated when found innocent. In other words, the entire topic of our conversation was ... (a) innocent people (who were wrongly convicted / executed) ... as opposed to (b) innocent people who were never accused or even tried -- much less convicted. No? That was my understanding, at least. And -- as such -- it is this first category of innocent people (category "a") to which I refer when I made the statement: the United States Supreme Court has held that executing an innocent person does not violate the United States Constitution. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

Putting a short statement in bold like that doesn't pre-suppose anything. It asserts that the gist of the full text it is paraphrasing is contained within the quote, which it is not. The parameters for that quote are very constrained, and represented the view of only 2 Justices - the minority in a 7-2 decision, which you also did not reveal.  Frank  |  talk  05:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, it is not at all separate to say that innocents have been convicted and eventually an innocent will be executed if it hasn't happened already. The latter requires the former; since we know the former has happened, it's only one further step to the latter. I do not know that it has happened. I do, however, assert that as time goes on, the probability of such an occurrence approaches 1. I do not claim to know whether or not we've reached that point, but we should be honest about the possibility first. Perhaps in some future time, we can then accept the reality when it occurs.  Frank  |  talk  02:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the probability approaches 1. In fact, that is a statistical "must" ... numerically, that phenomenon simply must occur. As such, then, the expected requirement (mathematical law) that the probability approaches 1 (as the number of executions increases) ... is a non-statement. It isn't saying anything at all ... other than re-phrasing the completely expected requirements of the mathematical / statistical / numerical laws of probability. That's like saying: "2+3=5 because we define the operation of 2+3 as being equal to 5". It says nothing at all. It merely re-iterates the mathematical facts / properties that must follow from the given input. Example: Let's say that you toss a fair coin ... and that you want it to come up "tails". You toss the coin once, you don't get any tails. You toss the coin 5 times, you don't get any tails. You toss the coin 100 times, you don't get any tails. As you keep tossing the coin (1 million times, say) ... you are increasing the probability that you will (maybe, possibly) get tails, eventually. That is a statistical fact. So -- yes -- as you have 1 million executions, you increase the numerical probability that one of them was incorrectly administered. Theoretically, however, you can toss the coin forever ... 70 zillion times ... and still never come up even once with a single "tails". There is no guarantee (at the 100% certainty level) that you will ever get a "tails". Likewise, with the executions. We can conduct 70 zillion of them. While the probability gets bigger and bigger that we may administer a "wrong" execution (of an innocent man), there is no guarantee that that will ever happen. So, I don't disagree that the probability approaches 1 -- as that merely states a known law of probability. I disagree, however, that the probability must reach 1 (as you claim). Again, your view is that "eventually, it's bound to happen". My view is that "the lengthy, strenuous, adversarial, and robust appeals process is our safeguard to insure that it will never happen". You and I must agree to disagree on this one. The fact that it (executing an innocent) might happen, to me, does not equate to the fact that it must (and will) happen. If I want to win the million dollar lottery, I can but one Lotto ticket. I can increase my chances to win by buying 100 tickets. I can further increase my chances to win by buying 1,000 tickets. But, even if I buy 70 zillion tickets, it is possible that I still might not win. I would also proffer ... the death penalty (in the USA) has been around forever ... but, for practical purposes, since 1976. In all that time, and in all those "x" number of executions, we have absolutely zero evidence / proof of an innocent man being executed. That speaks volumes. That itself is pretty good testament that the system works well / correctly. What better results can you ask for? What better evidence / proof can one want? The fact that it has never happened in the past is the best that we (as fallible humans) can do to insure that it will not happen in the future. As I said, you and I must agree to disagree on this one. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

Your description of probabilities is incorrect; after 10,000 tails, the probability of heads on toss 10,001 is 0.5 - the same as it was on the first, tenth, one hundredth, and all other tosses. A coin toss is not dependent on previous events, and it is not dependent on human intervention. A court case is quite different. When you state "the fact that it has never happened in the past", you are making a gratuitous assertion. Even the exalted Supremes you quoted above didn't say it has never happened; two of them merely say that the Court hasn't held that it would be unconstitutional. Even that is a careful statement; they're not asserting that it is constitutional; merely that they have not yet found that it is unconstitutional. It is far closer to correct to state that we have not yet identified a confirmed case of an innocent person being executed. Saying we haven't identified a case is not the same as saying it hasn't happened. If we are going to quote a 2-member dissent from a decision, and they are careful enough to state only that they have not found it unconstitutional, it is not wise for us as observers to translate that into "it has never happened" or that "it's constitutional".  Frank  |  talk  05:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the logic of "we have no evidence / proof of an innocent man being executed" is fallacious. Galileo Galilei provided "evidence / proof" in support of Copernicus' theory that the earth revolves around the sun and was placed under house arrest for it. Does that mean that the earth did not start revolving around the sun until hundreds of years later when it became generally accepted? I don't think so, and I doubt most people believe that. And yet...there was no "evidence / proof" (the two are not the same, by the way) that the earth was not the center of the universe, as science had held for centuries before Copernicus and Galileo.  Frank  |  talk  13:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The analogy to Galileo's situation is nonsensical. The theories of geocentrism and heliocentrism are reconciled, though not easily for some, by mathematics. Heliocentrism is merely the simpler of those two, formerly competing explanations for the observed phenomena of our every day. Lay with Occam's razor and there you go. Oh the other, cursorily logical hand, evidence of a fire accelerant vs. no evidence of a fire accelerant are irreconcilable outside of, as it might seem recently, the politically deluded mind of the governor of Texas. Of course, the governor's opinion on the matter might not be able to be definitely inferred from his public statements.Gwopy (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Victims of the fire

From much of what I have read, the three victims are usually described as Willingham's daughters. However, I notice that the oldest girl had a surname of Kuykendall and the younger twins had a surname of Willingham. Kuykendall is the surname of Willingham's then-wife, Stacy, who is also the mother of the three girls. Does anyone know anything more about this discrepancy? Was the oldest a step-daughter, perhaps? Or not even his daughter at all? It seems rather odd that the couple would have three children -- only a year or so apart -- and name the oldest with the wife's surname and the youngest with the husband's surname. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

From several sources I have read, Willingham and Kuykendall were married in September 1991. That is three months before the fire which killed the children. My speculation is that for the purpose of recording the birth, Willingham was not offered, or would not agree to be named as father of the first child, Amber, and then agreed to be recorded as the father of the twins, Karmon and Kameron. patsw (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

News reports covering the subject and bothering with the children surname usually reproduce justice documents that indeed use the mother's surname for the elder girl. The obituary that was published Dec. 26, 1991 by the local newspaper used the father's surname however [1] It is however one of the very few documents available online that precedes the legal action and the status of the fatehr as chief suspect. This has perhaps influenced the shift from usage to legal status of the girl. ---Dwarfpower (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also ... information printed in obituaries is never really "official" (as are court documents) ... it is simply whatever information the family gives to the funeral home and/or newspaper. At this point in history -- a few days after the fire -- the wife did not suspect / know that the husband was involved. So, perhaps when preparing the obituary for the funeral director / newspaper, they dispensed with the "formality" that the oldest girl's surname (technically) was Kuykendall. Just my theory. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

Rename proposal

As the article does not deal with Todd Willingham but with the arsoin case and with the search of a first legally innocent executed person, shouldn't we move the whole content to a new article and write about Willingham here, pointing to the case article ? ---Dwarfpower (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say "no". First, I doubt that there is enough material to warrant two separate articles. Second, this article is indeed about Willingham and his legal case ... so, it is appropriate to include both his biographical information as well as his legal case information. Third, Willingham's is not the first suspected (or argued) case of an innocent person being executed ... it is merely the case de jour (resulting from the very recent The New Yorker piece). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

then someone will have to seriously extends ( well arctually write ) the biographical portion... ---Dwarfpower (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Read again, this is the first case since the death penalty was re-enstated where an innocent man was executed. and based on scientific examination of the evidence he was clearly innocent of the crime for which he was charged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Response below.  Frank  |  talk  15:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider

this will likely be the first case of an innocent man being exectuted in modern times and therefore the article is likely to get a lot of activity. I read where alot of the claims by the DA are stated in the article as if they are facts. I just made one change where the article said Willingham wanted to burn his daughters to death to cover up child abuse AS IF THERE HAD EVER BEEN ANY CHILD ABUSE. His wife said there had never been any child abuse and that he would have never hurt them and that the kids were spoiled rotten by him. Virtually every claim made by the prosecution was a lie so it is very important that when you quote the DA or their claims that you balance it with other evidence, otherwise it appears wiki is fostering those claims. finally, the based on modern science the arson claim was thoroughly proven to be false and at least 3 experts came to the same conclusion. if there was no arson then there was no crime. keep that in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that we are about verifiability. The piece in The New Yorker is detailed and looks well-researched, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. We will not decide this here; we merely report it. What is currently verifiable is that he was convicted of the murders. Regarding the statement that "if there was no arson then there was no crime", we must again consider WP:V and also WP:OR. We don't know whether there was a crime or not; we know (to some degree) what transpired in the court system. These are not the same thing.  Frank  |  talk  15:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all the New Yorker is not the only paper following this tragedy. The Chicago paper hired a fire expert who came to the same conclusions regarding the arson "evidence" against Willingham. I believe 5 nationally known experts have all weighed in on the evidence each of them came to the same conclusion - there was no evidence of arson. i realize Wiki does not try people or claim their innocence or guilt, but the was much of the article is unsubstantiated claims and it appears Wiki is gving the DA a mouth piece to make untrue statements such as Willingam abusing his kids in the past. His own wife (who later changed her mind and belived he did it) said he never hurt any of the kids, yet the article made no mention of that vital fact. His wife said "our kids were spoiled rotten" and that Willingahm never abused them, in spite of what the DA said. So if you are going to report it please do not ignore one side and just make unsubstantiated claims by the DA and his ilk. I'm looking for NPOV and much of what I'm reading is very POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Add that information into the article, then, if you have a reliable source that indicates what you have claimed. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

The main argument against the investigation and supported by the new yorker paper and Beyler's report is lack of methodology, lack of scientific approach and bias, teh expert neglecting to study all possibility. You cannot claim Willingham innocent as long as it is not proven. All current study opposing the trial only say the jury was not presented with the material necessary to conclude to guilt beyond any reasonnable doubt. None of these document say he was innocent nor guilty. As long as innocence is not proven, Willingham is not the first legally innocent executed. He might be an innocent executed, but not a legally innocent.... ---Dwarfpower (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The statements from the prosecutor do not appear in the article because the Wiki-editing cabal of which I am a member have decided they are "true", they appear in the article because Willingham was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and a good article summarizes the evidence and testimony that led to that verdict. Quoting the prosecutor from a verifiable and reliable source just seems to me to be a good way to do that. patsw (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with patsw 100% on this point. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.26.82 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune investigation

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-texas-execute-0824-082aug25,0,5812073.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The New Yorker author responds to claims made by the original prosecutor who recently said even with no evidence of arson WIllingham was still guilty. How crazy is that? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/09/david-grann-response-to-jackson.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not crazy at all. Someone can be guilty of a capital murder, without committing an arson. Capital murder can be founded upon several theories -- arson being only one of them. In fact, if I recall correctly ... the prosecutor said that this case was predicated on a multiple child murder theory, not an arson theory. I will search for that quote when I can. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

OK, I found it. Here goes. This quote is by John H. Jackson. Jackson, now a judge, was one of the prosecutors in the Willingham case. The link is here: Willingham guilt never in doubt. Jackson stated: "The Willingham case was charged as a multiple child murder, and not an arson-murder to achieve capital status. I am convinced that in the absence of any arson testimony, the outcome of the trial would have been unchanged, a fact that did not escape the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. While anti-death penalty advocates can muster some remarkably good arguments, Todd Willingham should not be anyone's poster child." Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

You say that Willingham "can be guilty of a capital murder, without committing an arson." Wrong. If he didn't commit arson, then the fire was accidental and he did not commit murder. The point that Jackson is trying to make is that Willingham could have been found guilty of murder even without evidence PROVING that he committed arson -- not that Willingham could have been found guilty even if he did not actually commit arson. Jackson thinks that there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict Willingham without proof of arson. However, the New Yorker article does a thorough job of poking holes in all of the circumstantial evidence. Terence7 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my above posting. I did not say that "Willingham can ...". I said that, generically, someone / anyone can (e.g., in any given capital case). In this specific case ... the point remains that even if there were no arson evidence whatsoever (much less, questionable or even refuted evidence) ... there would still be enough for a capital conviction. Or, so says Jackson. I stand by my original statement. You have mis-quoted me. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 9 September 2009)

I think we're essentially in agreement -- I'm just taking issue with your statement that "someone can be guilty of a capital murder, without committing an arson." Well, no. (I assume you are referring to cases such as Willingham's, in which fire was the cause of death, since your statement is obvious and trivial in other circumstances such as death by shooting, etc.) If someone in a case such as Willingham's is found guilty of capital murder, that means the jury has found that there is enough evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed an act of arson. If there was no arson (i.e., if it was an accident), then there was no murder; therefore if there was a murder, there was arson. It is implicit in the murder verdict that an act of arson was committed -- whether or not the accused was convicted of a specific count of arson, and regardless of whether the evidence of arson presented was specific or circumstantial. Terence7 (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Conceding that the 1991 investigation was "undeniably flawed" by 2009 standards does not equate to "Willingham was innocent". That is not a fact, it is an argument made by Gann, the Innocence Project, and others. A formal finding of Willingham's actual innocence would come about from a review of all the trial evidence and testimony and would include determining the actual cause for the fire which killed the girls. patsw (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 9 September 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.26.82 (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

how about add this photo to the article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2009-08/48850408.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

if there is no arson then this could not be murder

this is not rocket science. if there was no arson, how could willingham have killed them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

An investigation, trial, and appeals were all conducted and he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of this Wikipedia article is different from the purpose of the Innocence Project and reviewers of the arson evidence. Their purpose is to publicize what they to believe mistakes made starting with the initial investigation of the fire through Willingham's execution. The article's purpose is to present, in summary, the findings of the court, the case made by the prosecution, and the case made by the defense -- and since the execution, summarize the alleged errors in the arson evidence, rebuttals, etc. Arguments are left to others. Editors here summarize. patsw (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

this is well worth reading first hand

• Analysis of the Fire Investigation Methods and Procedures Used in the Criminal Arson Case Against Ernest Ray Willis and Cameran Todd Willingham - Craig L. Beyler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The New Yorker article is only half of the story; the Beyler report linked to above that coincided with its release should get more mention in the article. It was an independent study commissioned by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, a state agency formed by the legislature to investigate professional negligence and misconduct in criminal cases, in response to a formal complaint filed by the Innocence Project based on the two previous arson investgations. Pravnik (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"An independent review that claims the arson investigation that led to the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham was flawed will be presented to a state panel Oct. 2 in Dallas.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission will hold its next quarterly meeting at 9:30 a.m. Oct. 2 at the Omni Mandalay Hotel at Las Colinas. On the agenda is a review and discussion of the report on the investigation into the Willingham case." Read more about it here: http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/local_story_252171810.html?keyword=topstory I'm trying to see if the public can attend this event, I plan to do so. Yeah and I don't need lecutures about original research.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That meeting is in fact open to the public. Here is the agenda http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/documents/D_100209MeetingAgenda.pdf I plan on being there! She said they normally finish about 2pm but they think this meeting will likely go until 5pm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Science Magazine interviews outside fire investigator re: Willingham

"In February, a landmark report by the National Research Council (NRC) in February criticized nearly every aspect of the nation's forensics science system, including unreliable techniques for analyzing hair and DNA samples—a problem the U.S. Senate has been addressing in recent hearings. But the NRC report said almost nothing about arson. So ScienceInsider conducted an email interview with John Lentini (left), a nationally known fire investigator who conducted an outside review of the controversial case of Todd Willingham, a convicted arsonist who was executed in 2004. Tomorrow, we will run an interview with Jay Siegel, a scientist who served on the NRC panel."

Forensic Science on Trial: The First of Two ScienceInsider Interviews

This is a brief yet good read.

Tex Governor Rick Perry defends himself

Is it me or is rick perry an evil man? http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-perry_19tex.ART.State.Edition2.4bf3d78.html

Texas Gov. abstructing justice in the Willingham Case?

More from the Dallas Morning News (linked below).

I wonder of the governor's motives in sweeping "three appointees from their jobs just two days before they were set to critically examine a flawed arson investigation that contributed to the execution of a Corsicana man" ibid. I wonder of the governor's agenda for the coming years and how a definitive conclusion that his state, the state of Texas, executed a demonstrably innocent person might affect that agenda and the governor's standing with his constituents.

Will sovereign immunity shield the governor, legislature and courts of Texas from civil and criminal action should the alleged evidence that a demonstrably innocent person was executed by the state of Texas ever be reviewed by an independent authority? Where does bloodlush lay on the scales of justice?

By any reasonable measure, assuming it was not riddled with falsehoods, the New Yorker article recounting the tale of woe of Cameron Todd Willingham seems quite convincing. If a wrong can be righted, it should be.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100109dntexperryarson.1cf2d2edb.htmlGwopy (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Perry did this because he has an election coming up. By doing this THE DAY BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS TO MEET he hopes it will go away until after the election. after that he won't care if the entire world knows he signed off on an innocent man being executed. and his followers aren't the type to shed a tear for innocent people being executed. I mean read Perry's public comments on the matter, he could care less about investigations and science and forensics. Killing perceived criminals carries a lot of currency in the state of texas. I have been here for 40 years. this is a blood thirsty state run by right wing religious whack jobs who think the world is 6,000 years old and want to see the bible taught in science class.

Poor Sourcing of this Article

I find myself wondering why no one has posted or made publicly available the key legal documents related to the Willingham case. Specifically, where are the links to the various appeals court decisions in his case? For that matter, why has no one posted at least some of the trial transcript online as well? This has been done before: the widow of Daniel Faulkner has posted the complete transcript of Mumia Abu Jabal on the justicefordanielfaulkner.com page.

I also wonder why the write-up of this article does not include other pertinent facts about Willingham's demeanor the night of the fire. Frankly, if I knew that my children were in a burning house and presumably dead or soon to be dead, I rather doubt that I would be preoccupied by trying to move my car to avoid damage to it. Doing something like that shows both presence of mind and a degree of callousness as well in my book.

Finally, it would seem appropriate to include in the article a section discussing the fact that Willingham's injuries were disproportionate to the ones his kids suffered (i.e. dying). That is frequently a hallmark of someone who stages a murder (for example: Jeffrey MacDonald, the Fatal Vision Killer, escaping an assault that left his pregnant wife and two little children beaten and stabbed to death with minor injuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.223.248 (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One would have to petition the Texas Criminal Court for release of the documents. Instead of wondering, you could certainly do that. The New Yorker article references court transcripts. Though, as judging from the second paragraph in this post, the author clearly hasn't read or hasn't comprehended the article (e.g. the car wasn't moved to avoid damage). Also, in a fire, injuries are typically disproportionate between groups that escape the fire and those that do not. For example, I had once been to the Federal Building in Oklahoma City but escaped it with disproportionate injuries (i.e. not dying) to those who were killed in the bombing of it. Is this a hallmark of my guilt for the bombing and the framing of another?Gwopy (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the article. I didn't see any explanation for why moving the car was not very odd behavior. I'm also struck by the fact that the article is not sourced, so the reader has to essentially take the author's word for all the facts presented in it. I'm also struck by the fact the article left out that Willingham's last words were apparently a curse directed at his ex-wife and an attempt to make an obscene gesture at her, since she and at least on of his defense attorneys came to believe he was guilty. I'm also struck by the fact the article did not mention that Willingham told the police that he had poured cologne on the floor because "the babies like the smell."

As for requesting the trial transcript, I'm not trying to make the argument that someone who was convicted, sentenced, and executed for a triple homicide of three children was wrongly executed for his crime. I remember reading a prominent abolitionist who said that anyone who takes up the cause of a condemned man who claims he or she is innocent has a duty to read the trial transcript, talk to the prosecutor, or speak with the investigators on the case instead of relying on newspaper articles and advocacy groups to form his or her opinions. You can read the piece, by Andrew Hammel, at this link.

http://www.fdp.dk/uk/strategy.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.81.129.193 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You need not "take up" the willingham "cause" to recognize the evidence used to convict him was not only unscientific but absurd. willingham was likely not the kind of guy you would want living next door, but the scientific evidence indicates arson did not cause the fire. if there was no arson then there was no murder. it's pretty simple stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)