Texas may well have killed an innocent man
economist.com
economist.com
Realistically, this would only bring the systematic destruction of any exculpatory evidence.
Is the US (Texas?) law enforcement that corrupt? That's actually pretty shocking that the only realistic outcome of holding those who execute the innocent is that the system would get even more biased.
Doesn't law enforcement derive all of their moral authority from always doing the right thing, from treating everyone exactly alike? If there's a significant percentage of law enforcement that is just out to "get someone", they have about zero moral authority.
The final report, released a year and a half later, only recommended more training for fire investigators; it did not examine exculpatory evidence, or issue any finding regarding negligence or professional misconduct. [2] Two months after that, Texas AG Greg Abbott issued a ruling prohibiting the commission from investigating evidence from prior to 2005, ensuring that the commission will not examine exculpatory evidence in the future. [3]
[1] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/10/david...
[2] PDF: http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/documents/FINAL.pdf
[3] http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/24/family-seeks-clear-na...
This case seems to hinge mainly on the fact that a lack of a scientific approach to investigating arson, combined with overzealous prosecutors, may have contributed to what the original headline claims.
Some key paragraphs (though you should go there and read it yourself):
--------
"With the naked eye, it is impossible to distinguish between the pour patterns and puddle configurations caused by an accelerant and those caused naturally by post-flashover. The only reliable way to tell the difference is to take samples from the burn patterns and test them in a laboratory for the presence of flammable or combustible liquids."
--------
"On February 13th, four days before Willingham was scheduled to be executed, he got a call from Reaves, his attorney. Reaves told him that the fifteen members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, which reviews an application for clemency and had been sent Hurst’s report, had made their decision.
“What is it?” Willingham asked.
“I’m sorry,” Reaves said. “They denied your petition.”
The vote was unanimous. Reaves could not offer an explanation: the board deliberates in secret, and its members are not bound by any specific criteria. The board members did not even have to review Willingham’s materials, and usually don’t debate a case in person; rather, they cast their votes by fax—a process that has become known as “death by fax.” Between 1976 and 2004, when Willingham filed his petition, the State of Texas had approved only one application for clemency from a prisoner on death row. A Texas appellate judge has called the clemency system “a legal fiction.” Reaves said of the board members, “They never asked me to attend a hearing or answer any questions.”"
His conviction rested on arson investigators’ findings and the testimony of Johnny Webb, a jailhouse informant who claimed that Willingham had confessed to him. Shortly before the execution, Willingham’s lawyers sent the governor and parole board a report from Gerald Hurst, another arson investigator, detailing multiple flaws in the first investigation. He concluded that the fire was caused by a space heater or faulty electrical wiring. Officials appear to have received this report before Willingham’s execution, but did nothing with it. Several independent arson investigators reached similar conclusions.
In this section The slow death of the death penalty Irrevocable Mass. appeal Buy now or later? Family portraits on wheels Cowboys v Feds Because men are not angels Reprints Related topics Crime Crime and law Willingham insisted on his innocence, refusing to plead guilty even to avoid execution. Mr Webb testified that, as he was passing Willingham’s cell, he heard him confess to having done the deed to cover up child abuse committed by his wife. But no bruises or signs of abuse were found on the children’s bodies.
Mr Webb recanted his testimony in 2000. He then recanted his recantation, but admitted to a journalist that “It’s very possible I misunderstood what [Willingham] said.” Mr Webb also testified that he was promised no benefit in exchange for his testimony. In February, however, lawyers working to get Willingham a posthumous pardon revealed a note discovered in Mr Webb’s file with the Navarro County prosecutor promising a reduced charge “based on coop[eration] in Willingham”. On April 3rd Texas denied Willingham a pardon. His lawyers can reapply in April 2016.
They pardoned the dead guy?
Sad story.