The New Yorker on Todd Willingham

Posted on September 7, 2009 by Charles Kuffner

If you haven’t done so already, you really need to read this in-depth story, as well as the brief followup, on the Cameron Todd Willingham case. Author David Grann gives a thorough overview of the case, and gets into why the “science” that the arson investigators used to build a case against Willingham was complete bunk. I realize that for some people there is no amount of evidence that will convince them that this was a horrible miscarriage of justice, but I do hope they’re in a small minority. It should be clear from reading this that we need more rigor in our forensics, and safeguards in the system that are actually used (the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is a sick joke) if we care about preventing another Todd Willingham. Better judges, especially on the appeals courts, are also a key ingredient. But making sure everyone knows about this case is a start. Read it and see for yourself. Thanks to Greg for the link.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Crime and Punishment and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The New Yorker on Todd Willingham

  1. Baby Snooks says:
    September 7, 2009 at 11:29 am

    As we have seen in the Medina case, scientific evidence is not 100% and often is countered by other scientific evidence and of course in both cases, the evidence is “interpreted” by individuals who also are not 100% and that includes DNA evidence which few like to talk about but can be manipulated in its interpretation and its presentation to a jury. Juries do not often understand that nothing is 100%.

    At the very least we should not allow the death penalty in cases where the sole evidence is the scientific evidence but of course so many have a “vested interest” in maintaining that innocent people are not wrongfully convicted and wrongfully executed it is doubtful you will see that. Not in Texas. And possibly not anywhere else.

    The Willingham case is not the only case in Texas where questions ahve been raised but the problem is you have prosecutors who of course never make mistakes. Not in Texas. And possibly not anywhere else.

    In some cases, the prosecutor probably knew they were innocent. But, well, what the hell, you know?

  2. Scott Cobb says:
    September 7, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    After the Todd Willingham case, a finding that the death penalty can be used without executing an innocent person can not be sustained.

    10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty
    October 24, 2009
    Austin

    http://marchforabolition.org

Comments are closed.