E-mail
Print
Even in Texas, where the death penalty is embraced with fervor, the revelation that the governor permitted an execution to proceed in 2004 despite abundant evidence that the prosecution was based on seriously flawed scientific methods -- well, that might not be helpful to his reelection chances. Not during a tough campaign.
FOR THE RECORD:
Execution: Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004, not in 2001, as a Friday editorial stated. —
So Gov. Rick Perry's sudden decision to reconfigure the Texas Forensic Science Commission looks highly suspicious. Two days before the commission was scheduled to hear testimony from an arson expert whose scathing report gave every reason to believe Texas had wrongly convicted Cameron Todd Willingham of setting the fire that killed his three children, Perry replaced the chairman and two other members. Apparently he remembered that their terms had expired in August. The pesky hearing was canceled. It has not been rescheduled.
The report by arson expert Craig Beyler -- whose findings corroborated those of at least one otherexpert -- is damning. Beyler concluded that the arson investigators in the Willingham case proceeded on mistaken assumptions, employed outdated methods and mixed courtroom testimony with mystical balderdash. No one should be executed because an investigator tells a jury that "the fire tells the story; I am just the interpreter."
If Perry didn't know about the problems with the prosecution, he should have. A report challenging the arson investigators' methodology landed on his desk before Willingham's execution. Now it's unclear how the commission will proceed. Its course, however, was set by the Texas Legislature, which established the board to "investigate any allegation of professional negligence or misconduct that affects the integrity of results and make all completed investigation reports, and subsequent civil or criminal proceedings, available to the public." We'll be waiting for a completed investigation and a public report.
Perry, who in recent days has called Willingham a "monster" who deserved to die and Beyler's report "propaganda," has had the nerve to paint himself as the victim of a politically motivated attempt to derail his reelection campaign. But he's wrong. His motives are being challenged because an innocent man may have been executed. Until Perry supports the commission's efforts and allows science to determine the truth, the likelihood remains that the real victim was Willingham.
FOR THE RECORD:
Execution: Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004, not in 2001, as a Friday editorial stated. —
So Gov. Rick Perry's sudden decision to reconfigure the Texas Forensic Science Commission looks highly suspicious. Two days before the commission was scheduled to hear testimony from an arson expert whose scathing report gave every reason to believe Texas had wrongly convicted Cameron Todd Willingham of setting the fire that killed his three children, Perry replaced the chairman and two other members. Apparently he remembered that their terms had expired in August. The pesky hearing was canceled. It has not been rescheduled.
The report by arson expert Craig Beyler -- whose findings corroborated those of at least one otherexpert -- is damning. Beyler concluded that the arson investigators in the Willingham case proceeded on mistaken assumptions, employed outdated methods and mixed courtroom testimony with mystical balderdash. No one should be executed because an investigator tells a jury that "the fire tells the story; I am just the interpreter."
If Perry didn't know about the problems with the prosecution, he should have. A report challenging the arson investigators' methodology landed on his desk before Willingham's execution. Now it's unclear how the commission will proceed. Its course, however, was set by the Texas Legislature, which established the board to "investigate any allegation of professional negligence or misconduct that affects the integrity of results and make all completed investigation reports, and subsequent civil or criminal proceedings, available to the public." We'll be waiting for a completed investigation and a public report.
Perry, who in recent days has called Willingham a "monster" who deserved to die and Beyler's report "propaganda," has had the nerve to paint himself as the victim of a politically motivated attempt to derail his reelection campaign. But he's wrong. His motives are being challenged because an innocent man may have been executed. Until Perry supports the commission's efforts and allows science to determine the truth, the likelihood remains that the real victim was Willingham.
Digg
Twitter
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Save more than
The first time that I heard this argument, I was in shock. The local news was on in my room, and a prosecutor that was being interviewed stated that he believed that one of the states inmates on death row should be executed, even though there was irrefutable evidence found later that the inmate was innocent. He felt that the trial was fair. No errors were made, and the jury found the defendant guilty, so the sentence should be carried out. I was amazed at what I had just heard. When I told this story to people, no one really believed it. I still can%u2019t.
%u201CThis 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 %u201Cactually%u201D innocent". Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged %u201Cactual innocence%u201D is constitutionally cognizable.
afxjay (11/03/2009, 6:32 PM )