This article is about a Texan named Cameron Willingham, who was executed by lethal injection in February of 2004. For the murders of his three children. The original reports said that he had set the house on fire allowing his three young children to die on December 23, 1991. When the fire was going, statements were originally taken stating the Willingham was making many attempts to get into the small house and rescue his children, eventually he was restrained and handcuffed. During trial, evidence showed that arson was most likely the cause of the fire. This is because of deep charring at the base of some of the walls and patterns of soot that made them suspicious. Forensic Scientists also noticed what they felt were ominous fracture patterns in pieces of broken window glass, leading them to believe that Willingham committed the crime, even though there had been no motive. He was put on death row and executed after 12 years despite the fact that influential scientists were making groundbreaking discoveries, all proving that the fire was not arson. Willingham was proven innocent; however, it was too late for him because he had been lethally injected.
12 comments:
Three aspects
1. I thought this was a very interesting topic to choose, how someone can be convicted of murder, sent to death row, then found innocent years later.
2. I liked how he showed some evidence in the prosecution for arson.
3. How he was proven innocent after already been given lethal injection.
Two Suggestions-
1. Explain the kind of evidence they had in prosecuting Cameron Willingham for arson.
2. Explain how he intentionally set the house on fire to murder his kids, if that was even the case.
One Thing I learned-
1. Giving someone the death sentence can not always be the best punishment for someone who has been prosecuted for a crime because there is still a possibility of their innocence.
i found this article very interesting, i would have never thought that someone that was convicted of murder, then was sentenced the death penalty, could be found innocent. i also liked the relation to forensics (the glass shatters and the burn analysis.) Unfortunately and against all odds this man was found innocent after he had been lethally injected.
The article was a good summary, but like some other crime related articles there was no explanation of the evidence, motive, or background overall to the crime.
To completely examine and prove somebody 100% guilty before acting, unfortunately a man had to die innocent to prove a lesson to everybody
1. I thought that this article was an interesting choice because it points out the flaws in science of proving someone guilty or innocent.
2. I liked how he showed that there was evidence present that he had indeed set the fire.
3. I found it amazing that they couldnt figure out that he was innocent until he was already put to death.
Two suggestions-
1. Help explain the evidence that was found to help convict an innocent man
2. Explain his motives on "killing his kids"
One thing I learned:
I learned that no matter how much science and evidence is presented that their is a chance that there is a chance for error.
Three aspects
1. I thought the topic of error in crime punishment was interesting and how innocence can still be found years after the crime occured
2.I thought how he was finally proven innocent after already being killed was interesting.
3. I liked how the article showed some evidence in the prosecution for arson.
Two Suggestions-
1. I think the article should explained in more detail the kind of evidence they had in prosecuting Willingham.
2. There wasn't a complete explanation of the evidence or motive
One Thing I learned-
1. that in every crime there is a chance for error, and the death sentence might not always be necessary, if there is a possibility of error.
Three aspects
1. I found this very interesting because it shows how back in the day, without complex forensic procedures we have today, much of the conviction was based on non-forensic evidence.
2.A man that was killed but then proven innocent is an interesting case that isn't seen much today.
3. I also liked how this write up showed evidence towards arson in the house. Shows both sides of the argument.
Two Suggestions
1. I feel that the article could have explained more about what the evidence was and why it was so believed that he was sentenced to death.
2. Also, if the motives of willingham could be explained better would clarify the courts decision.
One Thing I learned
1. It was interesting to see how the court could with little forensic evidence prove that someone was fully guilty, a man without motives, and sentence him to death.
Three Aspects
1. I thought the premis of the article was good how a man had been convicted of arson and sentenced to death, but later found innocent.
2. I also thought that it was interesting how people changed their stories after he was arrested.
3. It was interesting that even though the indications of arson were being disproved nothing changed.
Two Suggestions
1. Tell how the stories of the witnesses changed later on.
2. Explain why he would have killed the kids.
One thing I learned
From this I learned that many people are wrongly put to death and after the fact proven innocent. I would like to see how many people that has happened to.
1. One thing I found interesting was how when the fire broke out, Cameron Willingham was trying to get back into the house. Why would he try to get into the house if he started the fire? A second aspect I found interesting was how the police handcuffed the Cameron Willingham because he was trying to save his children. Finally I found it interesting that the he was on death-row for 12 years and in that entire time they did not find out that he was innocent until after his death.
2. Something that I thought could be improved upon is if the article described what was used to prove that he was guilty and that arson played a role. Another suggestion is that the article should say what made him innocent in the end and what forensic evidence helped discover this.
3. I learned that while many things the death penalty is good it does have its flaws. And these flaws can kill innocent people.
Three Aspects
- I found this article interesting as someone with a death sentence can still be found innocent.
- It was also interesting that they proved his innocence after his death.
- I also found how this article shows how people used to depend on non- forensics related evidence.
Two Suggestions
- The article should have shown the evidence in which Willingham was prosecuted for arson.
- The article should have had more detail about why Willingham was motivated to kill these people if he did.
One thing I learned
-I learned that before giving a person a death sentence it is important to be absolutely sure they are guilty, and there is always room for error in these investigations.
Three aspects
1. It is not rare that new break throughs in technology have revealed the truth in cases, yet even in knowing that, i find this article interesting.
2. I am glad that Anthony state some of the evidence from the case concerning the arson, and why Cameron was convicted.
3. It is really unfortunate that Willingham was exicuted after 12 years of trial, yet found innocent years after his death.
Two Suggestions
1. Give more evidence into the original case, and how the prosicution could convince the jury that he was guilty when there was no motive.
2. Give more information as to what proved Willingham's innocents.
One Learned Thing
There could be other cases of killed inmates for crimes they never commited yet were not found innocent in court.
1. This was a very intresting topic and it shows that the legal system is not perfect.
2. I liked how he showed some evidence in the prosecution for arson.
3. How he was proven innocent after already been given lethal injection.
1. 1. that in every crime there is a chance for error, and the death sentence might not always be necessary, if there is a possibility of error.
I thought this article was very interesting how Anthony informed to us that the man was found innocent after 12 years, but was already sentenced to death. I like how Anthony described the original reports first in the crime, which said that Mr. Willingham set the house on fire letting his children to burn. One more aspect that I found interesting was how at first thee statements originally taken stating that Willingham was running into the house to save his three children, but moments later he was restrained and handcuffed. I thought Anthony could’ve explained a little more on how the scientist’s discoveries led to Mr. Willingham being innocent. I would want to know what methods and procedures they used to conclude that this man was indeed innocent. Overall, this article was interesting because I learned that forensic scientists can have a lot of responsibility in determining if someone is innocent or guilty. Unfortunately for Mr. Willingham, it was too late to tell him that he was innocent and before sentencing someone to death, the forensic scientists should have there facts straight so they reveal a high-quality decision.
1) This article was extremly intresting. It made me realize the flaws in the judicial system
2) Very cool how even after a man is convicted to prison and death row, people are still working on the case even though he has been determined as the murderer.
3)Used very good references to Forensics with the shattered glass and soot patterns.
1)How exactly did the determin the mad was guilty?
2) Explain how they came to relaize that they were wrong and found out the man was not guilty
Post a Comment