Forensic science has once again disproved facts about the past that were assumed to be true. Cameron Todd Willingham was sentenced to death in the state of Texas for the murder of his children by means of arson, but forensic evidence has recently proven that he was completely innocent. The fire broke out on the night of December 23rd, 1991. Cameron and his children were at home, and since his family was poor, his wife went out to get the children presents from Salvation Army. The fire, now proven to be completely accidental, broke out and he awoke to the sound of his screaming children. He tried to save them but was pushed back by the intense smoke and fire. Willingham, who was later convicted of capital murder, had to be restrained and handcuffed as he continued to try to get into their room. During testimony, the prosecution convicted him of killing his children on the basis that “they were getting in the way of his drinking and dart playing”, even though there was no real evidence to go by. Only until a few weeks before his death, however, did evidence show that there was no sign of arson. Craig Bayler, a forensic scientist who was hired by private commission, said that the fire marshall who testified on Willingham’s case “seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires”. Forensic scientists who examined the case recently systematically knocked down every indication that the fire was caused by arson. Unfortunately, it was too late for Mr. Willingham.
-Luke Nichols
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01herbert.html?_r=1
1 comment:
I found the article Luke choose to be extremely interesting. I enjoyed reading a perfect example of the flaws in are judicial system. I also enjoyed how the article really makes you think about how forensic science is always being updated by new innovations that help to solve overturn crime rulings. Another element i liked about this article is that it made you question the death penalty, seeing as men can be sentenced to death row, killed, only to find out years later they were completely innocent. What I would have enjoyed in this article is more of an explanation as to why this man was determined guilty at the time. Another thing that would have been good in the article was a explanation of the forensic innovation that led a forensic to rule the man innocent. I wish that we could hear what the state government has to say about these new findings.
Post a Comment