Cameron Todd Willingham is a man who was executed in Texas in 2004 for capital murder. The authorities presumed that it was arson that resulted in the death of two young children. Willingham pleaded innocent. Fire examiners noticed deep charring at the base of some of the walls and patterns of suspicious soot. The examiners were sure that someone had set the fire, and that it had to have been Willingham. The local DA said “the children were interfering with his beer drinking and dart throwing.” Willingham was in fact innocent. He remained on death row for 12 years. Gerald Hurst, a arson investigator, reviewed the evidence in the case and began shooting down every indication of arson. Unfortunately, the authorities would not give him another hearing. Willingham was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Now, this year, Craig Beyler also reviewed the case. He found that there was absolutely no scientific basis for coming to the conclusion of arson. An innocent man was killed because experts came to a conclusion without having scientific evidence. If forensic examiners were at the scene perhaps this man would not have lost his life.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
"Innocent but Dead" By BOB HERBERT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
It was very interesting to see in this article how the police and legislative system of this nation can make mistakes sometimes; however, it surprises me that this event was not publicized as "big news". Regardless, I enjoyed the article because it was brief and to the point, full of information that was very interesting, and the subject at hand is a very interesting one. We do not want a repeat of what happened to this man from Texas which is why it is important to ensure that forensic science is funded properly allowing for new technologies and better criminal analysis. You could have put a bit more background information about the man and the family in the article and why they initially thought he is the one who committed the crime (what was the proof). I was intrigued to learn that the government let an innocent man dies, which makes you question the system that our legislative system is based upon.
This was a very interesting article. So far this year most of the articles that have been about forensic science have been about using it to capture those who are guilty, or a new form of identification. This article, however, was about how a lack of a proper use of forensic evidence led to an innocent man to be punished by death on a crime he did not even commit. The article itself was not too long, but it did includ all of the necessary details of the story. The article even gave information on why the investigators suspected arson.
I do believe that the review would have been better if the reasoning of officials for not giving Cameron Todd Willingham another hearing. Also, I wish that the article had gone into more detail on the suspicion of Willingham. When the officials thought it was arson the article implied that they immediately thought of Willingham. The only idea to that issue that the article gave was that Willingham’s two kids got in the way of his drinking and dart throwing.
I was most surprised by the fact that even with a review of the evidence by a specialist is arson a new hearing was not issued to Willingham. The interpretation of the evidence by the original investigators and the specialist, Gerald Hurst, was contradictory and I thought that if that happened, the death penalty process should be paused until the contradictions are solved. That is not the case in Willingham’s story, and it turns out to be sad because after another review of the evidence by Craig Beyler, Willingham was determined to be innocent of the crime, because the crime of arson was not even committed.
This article was interesting because it provided insight into both the difficult world of forensic science as well as showing how the legal system can, despite being one of the best in the world, can get things wrong sometimes. The review of the article was good in that it was concise and hit on all major points of the article itself. The topic of the article itself was also very interesting. However, it seems odd that there is no mention of the type of press given to this story, as it seems like it would make national news, either for being a fault of the justice system or a horrible story of a father killing his two children. The use of quotes was good in the review, but some of the details were not fully explained and that led to some minor confusion, but on the whole both the article and the review were well presented. Perhaps the most interesting thing I can draw from this story is that it took the scientists 12 years to prove his innocence, but by that time it was too late to save the man.
It was very interesting to see in this article how the police and legislative system of this nation can make mistakes sometimes; however, it surprises me that this event was not publicized as "big news". Regardless, I enjoyed the article because it was brief and to the point, full of information that was very interesting, and the subject at hand is a very interesting one. We do not want a repeat of what happened to this man from Texas which is why it is important to ensure that forensic science is funded properly allowing for new technologies and better criminal analysis.
It was very interesting to see in this article how the police and legislative system of this nation can make mistakes sometimes; however, it surprises me that this event was not publicized as "big news". Regardless, I enjoyed the article because it was brief and to the point, full of information that was very interesting, and the subject at hand is a very interesting one. We do not want a repeat of what happened to this man from Texas which is why it is important to ensure that forensic science is funded properly allowing for new technologies and better criminal analysis.
What was so interesting about this article was that it really showed how important forensic science is. Usually, forensic science is used to prove someone guilty however in this case, it could have been used to prove one mans innocence. Another interesting thing about the article that even though the case was reopened and the man proven innocent, he was still executed, exhibiting weakness in the judicial system. Had a further investigation been done immediately following the crime, the man would most likely have been found innocent and gotten to live.
What might have been helpful to know is the backstory of the case and if any other kinds of evidence had been found such as ashes in the mouth of the children. Had that been the case, arson would have been the answer. What also might have been helpful to know is why were there not forensic scientists at the crime scene immediately after the crime and not several years after. For all serious cases, usually a forensic scientist is present which is what makes this case so confusing.
What was surprising about this article was how even though later on the man was proven innocent, he was still executed. It is so simple to think that had a forensic scientists been present, it would have been so simple to prove the mans innocence but due to flaws in crime scene investigation, an innocent man was killed for no reason other than carelessness.
This article review was both interesting and different from most other reviews. The reason this article was new and different is because instead of talking about how forensics has brought criminals to justice, this article talks about how errors in the forensic process can lead to innocent people going to jail. Another positive of this article is that it presented all of the facts in a way that was unbiased and fair. Finally, the review included a lot of information, but the article maintained a good length.
I believe the review could have been improved if it included more quotes from officials on the subject of why Todd Willingham was not given another trial based on the new forensic evidence. I also believe the article would have been improved if the history of the first trial was expanded upon. That way more context can be applied to the trial in the article review.
I was most surprised by the fact that even though new evidence arose in the Willingham trial, he was not granted another trial. In addition, Willingham was executed on evidence that may have been false because of this lack of a re-trial.
“Innocent but Dead” is a frightening article about a man who was wrongly accused and killed for murder. It was interesting to see an article about an accusation that took an innocent man’s life, as opposed to the regular articles reviewed discussing new findings in the field of forensics. It is upsetting to see that in some cases, decisions are devised too fast, harming innocent people. The article displayed all the necessary information for understanding the scenario and the article was exceptionally gripping, with its false murder evidence. I think, however, that it would have been helpful if they could’ve told us more about the actual crime that was committed as to get a feel of how bad the case was. In knowing more about the case, we would have been able to get a better idea on why they thought it would be okay to give Willingham a lethal injection putting him to his death. The article was nonetheless very interesting and it was useful to know that without the aid of forensic science, many cases are wrongly determined. I think that this case should have been run over numerous more times and in a forensics lab before coming to the conclusion of killing a man.
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.
Article review gave good background information on the case. It also gave a good example on why the fire examiners were originally so sure of arson. The article gave a good example of something the DA said that made the father look bad even though he was innocent. The article review would have been better had it given examples of what Gerald Hurst did to prove the suspect innocent and why they wouldn’t give the suspect another hearing. I learned that even experts can be wrong and second opinions are always needed in cases.
This was a very cool article. This is because it really showed how important forensic science is in real life. It also shows how forensic science helps prove the innocence of a person or save a mans life that is being falsely accused of a crime he didn’t commit. It would’ve been nice if the article explained the case in more detail and they described why they believed it was arson. Also if the article described why they thought it was arson and then why their evidence was so wrong they were able to disregard the old evidence and use the new evidence. What’s surprising from this is that the judicial system will kill a man without clear evidence from an expert in the field.
This was a very intriguing article. the first aspect i liked waseven though the case was reopened and the man proven innocent, he was still executed, exhibiting weakness in the judicial system. i found that eye opening. the second 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. the last wasthe fact that even with a review of the evidence by a specialist is arson a new hearing was not issued to Willingham.
One spot to improve on could have been to put a bit more background information about the man and the family in the article. Second,it seems odd that there is no mention of the type of press given to this story, as it seems like it would make national news.
Overall i liked the article because of the simple fact that oppose to every article we have reviewed this year, this is the first one that actually focuses on the failure of forensic science as well as the judicial system.
One aspect that I thought was interesting was how Artie found an article short in size but covered the story completely, it wasn't too long. Another was how our police system and government can actually make mistakes sometimes. Lastly was how eventhough this man was found not to be linked to the actual murder, somehow he was executed anyways. One way it could have been better was if he explained more on how he really wasn't linked to the murder. Another way is that he also could've explained how the man somehow still had to be executed, he should've explained how they didn't change their midns or something. I by far most suprised that even after finding new evidence out with this crime, the man was still sentenced to be executed for something he could have not done.
This was a very interesting article. The article shows how the police and legislative system can sometimes make mistakes, it was very surprising to me that an event like this is not always highly publicized.I was interested by the overall summary of the article, it was about how a lack of a proper use of forensic evidence led to an innocent man to be punished by death on a crime he did not even commit. The article was brief and to the point, but did include most of the necessary details of the story.
I do think that the review would have been better if more specific details about the suspicion of Willingham was given, and if the reasoning for officials for not giving Willingham another hearing was stated more clearly. I was fascinated to learn that the government let an innocent man die and it still took them twelve years to find he was innocent, which allows people to start questioning the legislative system.It also surprised me that the original interpretation of evidence was contradictory.
Post a Comment