Cameron Willingham

News from the Innocence Project
Press Release and Background,
August 31, 2009
Contact: Eric Ferrero; eferrero@innocenceproject.org; 212-364-5346

New Report Shows that Cameron Todd Willingham, Executed in Texas in 2004, Was Innocent

"There can no longer be any doubt that an innocent person has been executed.The question now turns to how we can stop it from happening again"
- Innocence Project Co-Director Barry Scheck says

(NEW YORK; August 31, 2009) - An exhaustive new investigative report shows that Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas in 2004, was innocent. The report comes three years after the Innocence Project released analysis from some of the nation's leading forensic experts who found that the central evidence against Willingham was not valid. The Innocence Project also obtained public records showing that Texas officials ignored this evidence in the days leading up to Willingham's execution.

Willingham was convicted of arson murder in 1992 and was executed in February 2004. His two young children died at a fire in the family's Corsicana, Texas, home. At Willingham's trial, forensic experts testified that evidence showed the fire was intentionally set. A jailhouse informant also testified against Willingham, and other circumstantial evidence was used against him.

A 16,000-word report in the September 7 issue of the New Yorker deconstructs every facet of the case, finding that none of the evidence against Willingham was valid. Prior to the New Yorker's investigative report, by David Grann, the forensic science had been debunked as completely erroneous (including in a 2004 investigative report in the Chicago Tribune), but the other evidence was never examined closely.

"The New Yorker's investigation lays out this case in its totality and leads to the inescapable conclusion that Willingham was innocent. There can no longer be any doubt that an innocent person has been executed," said Innocence Project Co-Director Barry Scheck. "The question now turns to how we can stop it from happening again."

"As long as our system of justice makes mistakes - including the ultimate mistake - we cannot continue executing people," Scheck said. "This case also highlights serious problems with forensic science in this country. The vast majority of forensic scientists are honest, capable, hard-working professionals, but we aren't giving them the tools they need to do the job. Congress needs to create a National Institute of Forensic Science that can spark research to determine the accuracy of forensic disciplines and set standards for how our system of justice uses science."

In May 2006, the Innocence Project (which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law) formally submitted the Willingham case to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, along with information about another arson case and a request that the panel order a review of arson convictions across the state. In the other arson case, Ernest Willis was convicted of an unrelated arson murder and sentenced to death in 1987, and he served 17 years in prison before he was exonerated. The May 2006 filing included a 48-page report from an independent five-member panel of some of the nation's leading arson investigators, who reviewed more than 1,000 pages of evidence, testimony and official documents in the two cases.

In the report, the arson experts - with a combined 138 years of experience in the field - say that neither of the fires which Willingham and Willis were convicted of setting were arson. The expert report notes that the evidence and forensic analysis in the Willingham and Willis cases "were the same," and that "each and every one" of the forensic interpretations that state experts made in both men's trials have been proven scientifically invalid.

In 2007, the Texas Forensic Science Commission announced that it had accepted the Innocence Project's complaint and would launch an investigation. The commission contracted with Craig Beyler, a widely respected arson expert, to conduct an independent review of the evidence. Last week, Beyler filed his report with the commission, finding that the forensic analysis in Willingham's case was wrong. The commission announced that it is reviewing Beyler's report and will review other evidence before issuing its conclusion next year.

"The Forensic Science Commission is still looking at this case and the broader issue of arson convictions statewide. Members of the commission are clearly taking this very seriously, carefully and thoughtfully, and they should have the space to do their work," Scheck said. "The Forensic Science Commission is not going to determine whether an innocent man was executed. The New Yorker has already done that. The commission will determine what went wrong with the forensic analysis, how widespread the problem is and how we can be sure similar analysis is more reliable in the future."

For the full article in the September 7 issue of the New Yorker, go to: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

For the report commissioned by the Innocence Project and submitted to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, go to: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/ArsonReviewReport.pdf and http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/TXForensicLetter.pdf

For background on people sentenced to death but exonerated through DNA testing before they were executed, go to: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1857.php

For more on efforts to improve the reliability of forensic science, go to: http://www.just-science.org/

###

Comments

1. Comment by Greg, Dec 19th, 2009 11:31am

   Death penalty in the United States of America is the saddest fact about your country.
   
   The pride of a nation relates to the height of its philosophy. It's a silent but powerful pride to live in a country where Justice and Death never meet.
   




2. Comment by Joe, Nov 23rd, 2009 5:40pm

   Umm, yeah Brian. I think that's exactly what this article is suggesting. That if you can't be 100% sure that everyone is executed is in fact, guilty, then they should not execute anyone.
   How can you have a problem with saving an innocent life? Just because the others get to live too? If your case qualifies for the death penalty, then it qualifies for LWOP (life without parole) so they won't be walking free anyway.
   Easy to brush off an innocent man's execution when they're not close to you. But that's the point, that innocent person is close to someone and there's no guarantee it won't one day be you or someone you love.




3. Comment by brian, Nov 20th, 2009 11:33am

   I disagree. it's certainly an unfortunate case. Yet, it is not ok to take out death penalty simply because we got stupid pepole doing things they obviously don't qualify to do. This error is painful to read. However, would you argue against death penalty for the animals recently slaughtered Shaniya in NC?
   
   ANY VIOLENT CRIMES against CHILDREN should carry a mandatory death sentence. We don't care if it deters the next would-be-criminals. We only know that there is 1 fewer criminal on the street hunting little kids. They ALWAYS repeat their offense. It only gets easier and harder to catch the 2nd time around.
   
   Tell Smart, Dugard, little boy floating in Berkley Marina, or that little girl found in FL/GA land fill that their perp was 'low risk' and deserve a 2nd chance.... 4 years for a child killer is a joke... here he is again for killing 2 people, maybe we should give him 8 years this time.