Mythbusters Exonerate Cameron Todd Willingham

While the Texas Forensic Science Commission fiddled, after having first been neutered by Governor Rick Perry, Mythbusters unintentionally demonstrated how fire spreads rapidly through a room, even in the absence of accelerants.

Imagine that! It's as if Dr. Gerald Hurst (our nation's foremost fire investigator) knew of what he spoke when he advised Perry to stay the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.

For the geekly disadvantaged among you, Mythbusters is a cable television show in which Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman apply the scientific method (loosely) to test the validity of rumors, myths, movie scenes, and adages. (I borrowed that description from Wikipedia. That's why it was so tantalizing.)

One of my favorite shows was their testing of claims that water heaters can explode so violently that they launch themselves through the roof. As it turns out, that can happen, and in spectacular fashion. To demonstrate, they constructed a small house, subverted the safety devices on the heater, and encouraged it to overheat. The results were astounding. Play the short link below to get just a nibble of what the Mythbusters are all about.

For those of you unwilling to part with 32 seconds to watch the video, I provide the money shot below.

Another favorite was when they tested a claim that two tractor trailers completely flattened a compact car unfortunately caught between them when the two trucks had a head-on collision. According to the claim, the compact car was not just flattened, it was fused to the trucks. This claim was busted, proven to be not possible. The car was certainly damaged during the recreation, but there was no fusing of metal.

However, and there is frequently a "however" on Mythbusters, Adam and Jamie decided to see if it would be possible to fuse a compact car between two trucks travelling at 700 miles per hour rather than a mere 50 miles per hour. To do that ... well, you should watch and behold.

For those of you unwilling to part with 4 minutes and 9 seconds to watch the video, I provide below a less impressive composite image of the car being flattened.

Though the car was clearly flattened, the 1 inch thick metal plate moving at 700 mph did not fuse with the metal on the car. They declared the myth busted.

Now, as much as I like many of the Mythbusters' segments, the show is starting to deteriorate. It's becoming too formulaic, the spontaneous banter is now scripted and poorly delivered, and the lure of product placement has caused them to show some real stinkers. The show dedicated to The Green Lantern movie was painful to behold, as I suspect was the movie itself.

Last week, Adam and Jamie investigated a scene from The Bourne Supremacy. It was during their recreation of a scene from that movie where they unintentionally and unknowingly showed how the Willingham fire spread rapidly and left behind evidence misinterpreted as use of accelerants.

In the movie, Jason Bourne gets out of yet another tight spot (imagine that) by creating a MacGyver-like explosion in a room. He turned on the gas, put a magazine (the kind you read) into the toaster, and left. The magazine caught fire within 25 seconds and ignited the gas just as Bourne's pursuers were about to enter the room. The pursuers were thrown head over heels backwards by a giant fireball, and Jason Bourne escaped.

Adam and Jamie began their investigation by placing a magazine in a toaster and recording how long it took too ignite. It took 12 minutes and 2 seconds to ignite. (They reveal online that they had to defeat a safety mechanism on the toaster to keep it from automatically tuning off due to overheating.)

They next tested a series of magazines and newspapers to determine if any such printed material would ignite within 25 seconds. None of them did. The newspaper ignited most quickly, in 1 minute and 40 seconds.

They then constructed a small plexiglass enclosure to determine the range of fuel-air mixtures in which natural gas (mostly methane) will ignite. They knew the answer beforehand (around 9% gas for optimum explosion) but they wanted to demonstrate. The point is that if there is only a little gas in the room, the room will not explode. Similarly, if there is only a little oxygen in the room (because there is too much gas), the room will not explode.

Having completed their preparatory work, they built a full size room, and pumped methane into it as a magazine belatedly caught fire in a toaster. Nothing happened.

During the second test, they decided to pump more gas into the room, mix it better, and subject it to a more reliable ignition source. The removed the toaster from the table, covered the table with bricks, and placed an artificial fireplace log on the bricks. The bricks were there, obviously, to keep the table from being ignited by the fireplace log. Adam and Jamie obviously did not know what awaited them.

Hang on. After all this writing (or in your case, reading), here we go.

Scene 1:

Adam Savage lights the artificial fireplace log on the brick covered table, then makes a quick exit.

Scene 2:

The fireplace logs performs pretty much as expected.

Scene 3:

Since there is no chimney for the heat to escape, the heat accumulates above the table. Within four minutes of lighting the log, the ceiling catches fire.

Scene 4:

Some burning material drops from the ceiling and sets one of the chairs on fire.

Scene 5:

 The fire begins to spread across the ceiling.

Scene 6:

The couch begins to smoke. It's near ignition, not because anything is falling on it, but because of all the radiant heat from the ceiling. When it ignites, it will not ignite in any particular region. It will ignite all at once.

Scene 7:

The magazines ignite just before the couch. Nothing fell on them to make them ignite. The heat radiating from the ceiling is sufficiently intense to ignite the magazines from afar. A human would catch fire just as easily. Those who say Willingham must be guilty because he did not go back and save his children have no idea what they are talking about. A human could not bear the heat. Even if he magically could, he would simply combust and ignite.

Scene 8:

The couch and the bookshelf ignite simultaneously. You are looking at the onset of flashover. The fire radiates so much heat that most everything in the room ignites at once. It happens so fast, it seems as if the room explodes.

Scene 9:

Just moments later the floor ignites. Look at the pattern being burned into the floor. Texas would confuse those patterns with evidence of accelerant being poured on the floor. Because of their confusion, yet another innocent man was given the needle.

Scene 10:

The fire races across the ceiling and floor, leaving more faux evidence of accelerants.

Scene 11:

The rapid increase in heat and gas generation causes the walls to fail and the fire to vent. The Mythbusters' demonstration room was built nowhere near code, and quickly failed at a corner. More typically, the framing withstands the forces better than the windows. More typically, the windows blow out.

Also, the ceiling is beginning to burn through. The Mythbusters used plywood, not wallboard, for the walls and ceiling. Though the paper on the wallboard is flammable, the gypsum inside the wallboard provides a good fire barrier. In an actual house, the ceiling would not have burned through so quickly.

Scene 12:

Back inside, the room is growing darker. Left unchecked, it will soon become impossible to see in the room. Had there been a larger fuel load in the room, the smoke generation would have been more rapid. In the Willingham fire, which took place in the children's room, the fire thrived on a bed, two cribs, a dresser, curtains, a rug, a Little Tykes Oven, and a child's large plastic slide.

The fire consumes the floor. In the Willingham trial, the experts said that couldn't happen unless an accelerant was first poured on the floor. Their logic, the logic that the Texas Forensic Science Commission refuses to fault, was that "fire burns upwards."

The images show how a fire can spread so quickly. They help you to understand how people in one room can be killed while people in another might escape, and why rescue efforts by untrained, unequipped loved ones are bound to fail. They do not help explain how the Willingham fire started. It clearly did not start by someone placing an artificial fireplace log on a brick covered table.

If you are interested in learning more about the actual cause of the Willingham, there is only one book available. It is my work Inferno, available at Smashwords for a mere $0.99. I present below the introduction to that august work.

Amber was once again drawn to the heater, to its bright flickering flame, to its warmth, to its forbidden mysteries and charms. Both Mommy and Daddy had caught her before, putting things too close to it. Daddy had even given her whuppings, but he was asleep in the other room, and Mommy was not even home. 

Perhaps she wanted to move some of the fire from the heater to her Little Tykes oven sitting nearby. Perhaps she simply wanted to put something inside the heater and watch it disappear. 

Maybe a piece of drawing paper. Maybe one of her socks, the one she wasn't wearing when she was pulled barely alive from the house. Maybe it was the sock that was never found. 

Whatever it was, when it burned it was scarier than the fire in the heater. It burned closer and closer to her finger and her thumb as she held it at arm's length. But it was so hot. It was the hottest, scariest thing she felt, ever, so she flung it away, and then the curtain was on fire. The curtain between the heater and her little oven was on fire. She was going to get in trouble again. She was going to get another whupping. 

Fear of anger and whuppings, though, were quickly overcome by horror. The fire was growing larger and larger and scarier and scarier. She retreated as the fire climbed the wall to the ceiling. The smoke got inside her and made her cough. She could feel the heat on her skin, on her face and neck and shoulders. She had to get away, but the gate was there, blocking the doorway, keeping her from the safety of her Daddy's arms. 

Her sisters too were scared. They were crawling away as fast as they could, crawling towards the far corner of the room. One of them made it underneath the crib. 

Now the top of the room was on fire, and it was getting dark even though it was just morning outside. She couldn't breath and face burned, and her neck and her bare shoulders, and she wasn't even close to the fire. She didn't want to keep it a secret any more. She wanted her Daddy to save her. She screamed and screamed but he didn't come.

So she did what her sisters could not do. She climbed the child gate and ran to her Daddy's room, screaming for him. 

"Daddy, Daddy!" 

She couldn't see him because the smoke was there too, in his room. It was everywhere. She could hear him though. He was yelling at her to run, to go outside. But the fire was there where he wanted her to run, and she wanted him to save her. She climbed into his bed, but he wasn't there. 

Instead of him saving her, she would save him. She would save him with her screams and her pleas, by awakening him, by telling him of the fire, by taking his place in the bed, by breathing in the smoke that would have filled his lungs instead of hers. 

It wasn't heroism that caused Amber to take her Daddy's place. A two-year-old cannot be heroic. She can only be afraid of fire and smoke and dark. She can only be expected to seek the safety of Mommy or Daddy. Amber did everything a two-year-old could and should do. She screamed, she climbed the gate, and she ran for help. In doing so, she bought a reprieve for her father. 

The fire, however, would not be denied. Disguised first as justice and then as a needle, it would eventually consume her father just as surely as it had consumed her sisters, just as surely as it consumed her.

If, instead, you would like to understand how a jury can send an innocent man to death row, consider The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham, on Kindle for only $2.99 or in the old-fashioned print format for $19.17.

Inferno: An Inquiry into the Willingham Fire

With the invaluable assistance of my graphic designer, editor, and publisher (i.e. The Skeptical Spouse), I've completed my first book intended exclusively for e-publishing. It's available from Smashwords. 

Most of you have not previously heard of Smashwords. Smashwords plans on being for e-pubs what Amazon has been to printed books. The difference is that you can get many low-priced (and even free) books for any e-reader, not just Kindle, at Smashwords. You can, for example, purchase the book for a Sony Reader, a Barnes and Noble Nook, a Palm, or a Kindle. You don't even need an e-reader. You can download books in PDF, Javascript, HTML, or Rich Text Format. If you have a computer and an internet connection (which you must have to be reading this) you can download books for free, or you can spring for $0.99 and learn what actually caused the Cameron Todd Willingham fire.

Okay, here's a spoiler: It wasn't arson.

I won't detail the contents of the book any more than that. There's no need to. You can go to Smashwords and read the first 10% of the book for free. Almost all books on Smashwords allow a free preview. Typically, you are allowed to read the first 10% to 25% of the book online to see if you really want to part with your  hard-earned money.

Although the books are copyrighted, they are not DRM protected. You can copy them as you wish for your personal use. You can download a PDF, for example, and then load it into your Kindle. You will have a copy on both your computer and your Kindle, no extra charge. The books are inexpensive enough that we (the authors) hope that individuals will each purchase their own copy.

Now, after that compelling introduction, I'll understand if you decide to leave to browse around instead at Smashwords. You might consider starting here.

Johnny Frank Garrett: Not The Last Word

Reader Anonymous left a comment on my post What's Up With Johnny Frank Garrett? He informs us that The Last Word is now available on Netflix for instant viewing. The Last Word is an award winning documentary about  the obviously wrongful execution of Johnny Frank Garrett.

The 90 minute documentary provides more detail than I provided in my post Actual Innocence: Johnny Frank Garrett and Bubbles the Clairvoyant. If you have a Netflix subscription, you should watch the documentary. I suggest you wait until you have time to be sad and discouraged.

Jeff Blackburn is a Director for The Innocence Project of Texas. He appears in the documentary. Repeatedly. I'd say he's a bit angry about this case. Here's what he had to say about then Governor Ann Richards.

She should have stopped this execution and commuted his sentence. She could do it. There's no question about that. The governor has that power. She was arguably one of the best governors if not the best governor the 20th century had ever produced, and the best she could do is go along with the mob. That tells you how far things have gone in Texas.

To understand Ann Richards you've got to understand that she was a great Texas politician. To be a great politician in Texas means you've got to be a lousy human being. You cannot be governor of the state of Texas and be anything other than rotten to the core.

Johnny Frank Garrett made me personally change my whole view of Ms. Richards, a view that I had fostered on me and nurtured in me since childhood. She did the wrong thing, and for the wrong reason. And she did it for the sake of what they call political effectiveness, which really means keeping your career intact.

It was wrong and lousy and it still is wrong and lousy.

That's a bit harsh, but Ann Richards did in fact allow Johnny Frank Garrett to be executed. Rick Perry did in fact allow Francis Elaine Newton and Cameron Todd Willingham to be executed. All three were almost certainly innocent. It was wrong and lousy that we killed them.

Those three people died in vain. We have not learned from the injustice we inflicted upon them, and injected into them. We are going to do it again.

We are going to do it again in twelve days.

I'll write of that case tomorrow, on the first day of the new year.

Already Here and Coming Soon

I'm pleased to announce that The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham is now available in print form. Click on the book cover at the upper left to land on the appropriate Amazon page.

Actually, the book has been available since last Wednesday, on the exact day The Skeptical Publisher/Spouse predicted. Initial Amazon posts, while functional, are pretty bare-bones and pathetic looking. They don't even include a cover shot, a publisher's description, or any tie-ins with other books. It was under-dressed and not suitable for public viewing. Even though the page is not yet properly attired, it at least has a house coat.

Hopefully sometime tomorrow, I will be posting "The Three-Gun-Monte, Sack O' Fertilizer Conviction and Execution of Frances Elaine Newton." Newton was an African-American female executed under Rick Perry's watch. The long post title is probably appropriate because the post is turning out to be pretty long. 

Also this week, I will be initiating a long running series on Michael Ledford, beginning with "Anatomy of a Polygraph Induced False Confession: Part I." For now, I'll provide two pieces of insight into why I might be writing about Michael.  First I'll simply quote the dedication from The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham. 

I dedicate this book to Michael Ledford, John Maloney, and the hundreds of others wrongfully convicted on bad fire science.

Second, I'll note that I have accepted Michael's case as one of the few cases I work on directly to prevent or correct a wrongful conviction. Sometimes, the legal circumstances of these cases prevent me from writing about them, writing about some aspects of them, or even identifying them. Michael's case doesn't fall into that category.

I'll be trying to post at least three times per week. Given my preference for original writing and lengthy posts, this is sometimes challenging, particularly in light of my other obligations. Nonetheless, writing here is good for me, the craft I am trying to develop, and the work I am trying to accomplish. Thank you for reading.

tsj

SCOTUS Reads The Skeptical Juror

Working with the resident jailhouse attorney, Byron Case petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari. Recall from a previous post that certiorari is Latin (of course) meaning "to be more fully informed." Meanings change over time, but currently, here in the United States, a writ of certiorari is an instruction from a higher court to a lower court to hear a case. Typically it means the Supreme Court instructs a lower court to hear a case.

The issue in Byron Case's case was the admissability of a tacit admission used as evidence against him. Amidst a long haranging dithyramb during a surrepticiously recorded phone call, an embittered ex-girlfriend accused Byron of killing a common friend. Byron did not explicitly deny the charge, and in Missouri that counts as a tacit admission of guilt. The so-called tacit admission was instrumental in Byron's conviction and his resulting life sentence.

(Byron claimed he can't even remember the late night call, explaining he had strep throat and a high fever at the time. He introduced a medical report from the next day to confirm his point. An acoustic analysis of the phone call I conducted for the book shows that the transcript was falsified and the volume was manipulated on the girlfriend's side of the call.)

I addressed the issue of tacit admission in The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Byron Case. Without my knowledge, Bryon included the segment from my book in his petition to the Supreme Court. While it's unlikely any of the nine justices read it, it's possible one of the clerks may have. Hence my claim that SCOTUS reads The Skeptical Juror.

I include the purloined segment below.

With respect to the tape, the appeals court agreed with the prosecution that the conversation constituted a tacit admission. The tape was therefore not excluded by hearsay rules.

A defendant makes a tacit admission of guilt when the defendant fails to respond to or significantly acquiesces in the import of an inculpatory statement by making an equivocal, ambivalent, or evasive response when the inculpatory statement was made in the presence and hearing of the accused, and was sufficiently direct, as would naturally call for a reply.

If someone asked you why you felt the need to kill John Kennedy, and you simply stared at them, that would clearly fit within Missouri’s definition of a tacit admission. You failed to respond. 

If instead of remaining silent you told the person to “Shut the fuck up,” that too would be a tacit admission. That exact response has already been judged as a tacit admission by the State of Missouri. “We shouldn’t talk about this” would also be a tacit admission, since that’s what Byron allegedly said. “Maybe I did, maybe I didn’t” would certainly be a tacit admission, since it’s equivocal. 

It’s difficult to determine how eloquent one might have to be to avoid tacitly admitting to the assassination. I’m guessing “Have a nice day” might be insufficient, since it’s ambivalent. “Bite me” is not much different than “Shut the fuck up.” “I don’t know what you’re talking about” might be ruled evasive, as could “I’ve got to be getting home.” 

I suggest something along the line of: “I did not kill John Kennedy, nor did I have any agent act in my stead, nor did I have any role whatsoever in his assassination, either before or afterwards, nor do I know of anyone who actually participated in or contemplated his assassination.” Think quickly though. If you try something such as “I’ll need to check with my attorney before responding to your statement,” that will almost certainly qualify as tacit admission in Missouri.

Byron and his jailhouse attorney wrestled with including the profane language as is or masking it. They decided to include it exactly as I wrote it. I included the profane language because it was in the court decision that established tacit admissions as case law in Missouri.

By comparison, the state of Texas refuses to this day to put the complete text of Cameron Todd Willingham's last words online, because Willingham used profane language just before they killed him. I find it sadly comical that the same state that straps its citizens to a gurney and pumps them full of lethal chemicals suddenly gets the vapors when it comes to printing coarse language.

Antonin Scalia's decision to consider Hank Skinner's petition for a writ of certiorari resulted in a stay of Hank's execution just 45 minutes before Texas pumped him full of chemicals. That's rare. The Supreme Court dismisses 99% of the petitions without comment.

In Byron's case, the Supreme Court dismissed his petition without comment on the first day of their new session. Another door closed on a wrongfully convicted man.

Byron and his jailhouse attorney have formally asked the Supreme Court to reconsider their rejection. The chance for success is slim, but when you are serving life for a crime you did not commit, you have to take the few chances available to you. Hopefully, the nine justices will someday soon indeed read The Skeptical Juror.

The Untold Story of Cameron Todd Willingham

Until now, no one has written of The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham. Many have written about the discredited arson evidence used against him, but no one has written on the trial. Few writers have noted that the jurors maintain still today that they would have convicted Willingham even in the absence of the arson evidence.

There are multiple tragedies in this story. One of them is that had the jury deliberated more carefully and more skeptically, Willingham might not have been even convicted, much less executed.

The defense put on almost no case of its own. A babysitter testifed that Todd would never have done such a thing, An inmate was called to rebut the State's snitch, but was not allowed to testify. Other than those two less-than-impressive witnesses, Willingham's defense called no one to testify in his defense.

Despite the lack of an affirmative defense, and despite inadequate confrontation of the State's witnesses, the trial testimony still had buried within it an explanation of the fire that undermined the State's case. The jurors failed to see it. 

Will you, as a skeptical juror, see what they missed? 

<<>>

Thank you for your patience while I was distracted by the writing The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham. The book is now available on Kindle. It will soon be available in print, hopefully this week. Click the book cover at the upper right purchase from Amazon.

Regular blogging will resume on Monday. Learn why Kia Levoy Johnson may be another person wrongfully executed under the watchful eye of James Richard "Rick" Perry.

Death By Fire

The Skeptical Spouse / Editor / Publisher and I just watched the Frontline presentation of Death By Fire. It told the story of Cameron Todd Willingham's conviction and execution for an arson / murder that never happened. Well done, but short. They had only an hour. Anyone who would like to watch it online can do so here.

We finished proofing our book The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham just hours earlier. We were watching the show with special interest to see if the book was solid or if it contained a factual error. We both decided the book was good to go.

It will be off to our printing firm and to Kindle first thing in the morning. The Skeptical Spouse / Editor / Publisher believes the Kindle version may be available as early as this weekend and the print version may be available as early as next Wednesday.

Our work is definitely not a rehash of the Frontline show. The show barely touched on the primary focus of the book. As a reader, you'll have a chance to see if you, as a juror, could have stopped the tragedy before it began. No fire experts were needed to see that the State's case was simply not possible.

So it looks as if we can turn out a book in four weeks from first keystroke to availability on Amazon. I probably won't be trying it again any time soon, though. It's pretty hard on everyone involved. Tomorrow, I can start digging through the backlog of things left undone.

Good night.

Three-fer Update on Cameron Todd Willingham

Item First:

Watch the Frontline show on Cameron Todd Willingham. It will be air on PBS tomorrow, October 19, at 9 PM (check local listings and all that.)

Preview Part I on YouTube.

Preview Part II on YouTube

Now Item Second:

I finished The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham. It's been through a couple of edits, and I have another pass to make through it to incorporate some more changes I've already decided upon. With those qualifications, the book is complete from beginning to end. I challenged myself to write it in one week. It took me three. Though it took me three times as long as I had aimed for, I'm pleased with my effort and the result.

We plan to release the book to our printing firm on Wednesday. It would be foolish of me to turn it out before the Frontline show. I would rather discover an error just before sending the book out rather than just after. The book should be available on Kindle within a week or so, and hopefully available in print from Amazon in less than two weeks.

The book will tell the story as it's never been told before, and as it is unlikely to be told again. It tells the story from the perspective of the jury room. You will get to examine the evidence just as it was presented to the actual jury. You will have an opportunity to find the flaws in the evidence, even if you are not a fire expert. The flaws were there. The actual jury did not notice them. A skeptical jury might have. I argue that not only should Willingham never have been executed, I argue he should not have been convicted.

Now Item Third:

I present this article from AP reporter Jeff Carlton. I've certainly seen his name around as I've been working on the Willingham book. This article is about the behavior of Rick Perry's hand-picked chairman for the Texas Forensic Science Commission that is to look into, among other cases, the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Sometimes, as in this case, it is simply best to allow those you disrespect to dig their own graves.

AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas prosecutor accused of bias for describing an executed man as a "guilty monster" defended his comments Friday, while his colleagues on a commission investigating the case said he might have jeopardized the integrity of their inquiry.

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley said lawyers trying to clear Cameron Todd Willingham's name are using the case to further their effort to abolish the death penalty. He also argued that he has a First Amendment right to state his opinion.

"We are being used, and we should recognize that," Bradley said. "When do we get to respond to those lies? Who is going to correct the record?"

Willingham was convicted in 1992 of capital murder in the deaths of his three daughters and executed in 2004.

Bradley chairs the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which is investigating whether fire investigators committed professional misconduct in determining arson caused the 1991 Corsicana house fire that killed Willingham's daughters. At least nine fire experts have said the fire was an accident, not arson.

Other commission members said Bradley's remarks to The Associated Press, in which he described Willingham as a "guilty monster," raise questions about the impartiality and integrity of their inquiry.

"There is a difference between correcting the record and making the type of statement we are talking about," said Sarah Kerrigan, the laboratory director at the Sam Houston State regional crime lab.

But Bradley then referred to the Innocence Project's effort to clear Willingham as "politics and a circus sideshow."

"Texans deserve to have a prosecutor's voice included in the discussion of forensic science, a voice that can include concern for the victims of crime and not just the perpetrators of crime," said Bradley, who was appointed to the chairmanship last year by Gov. Rick Perry.

Stephen Saloom, the policy director of the New York-based Innocence Project, said Bradley shows "a critically important lack of objectivity" in his approach to Willingham.

"His job here is not to be the DA and the friend of the governor," Saloom said.

Bradley, who raised his voice repeatedly, dismissed Saloom as a "New York lawyer" making "personal attacks rather than legal arguments."

Bradley's leadership has been questioned since last year, when the governor sacked three members of the forensic commission just days before it was to review reports that cast doubt on the arson finding. Perry installed Bradley, a conservative ally, as the new chairman. Bradley canceled the subsequent meeting and since has sought to close the inquiry.

On Thursday, two fire experts testified at a special court of inquiry hearing unrelated to the forensic panel's inquiry, saying the Willingham fire was an accident. The judge overseeing that hearing has the power to declare Willingham innocent.

An Austin appeals court, however, granted an emergency stay that will prevent the judge from ruling for at least one week and could end the proceeding altogether.

If the judge clears Willingham, it would mark the first time an official in the nation's most active death penalty state has formally declared that someone was wrongfully executed.

The commission took no action Friday on Willingham. However, members are trying to arrange a November meeting that would hear live testimony from fire experts who have studied the case. Bradley continued to criticize the effort to clear Willingham after the meeting.

"I think it's pretty ridiculous to have this court of inquiry at the same time we're doing this," Bradley told reporters. "I think the public can see it for the sham that it is."

Click here to see Rick Perry's reaction on how things are working out with respect to keeping the Willingham case under wraps.

Clueless in Texas

From DallasNews.com

AUSTIN – Members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission criticized their leader on Friday for calling Cameron Todd Willingham "a guilty monster" while they are still investigating the arson case that led to his execution.

Chairman John Bradley, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry last year, nevertheless defended his statement, saying it was his First Amendment right.

John Bradley should step down. He won't do so.

Rick Perry should replace John Bradley with a commissioner who will be more objective. He won't do that.

John Bradley and Rick Perry hope to keep the truth from coming out. They're too late. The cat is already out of the bag. They're now trying to convince you it wasn't a cat.

I don't dispute Bradley's First Amendment right to free speech. He is clueless to mention it, however, when the commission he chairs is charged with determining whether Cameron Todd Willingham ever received his right to a fair trial. John Bradley might want to keep in mind an even more fundamental right.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Fear and Loathing in Las Texas

Rick Perry loathes Cameron Todd Willingham:

"Willingham was a monster. This was a guy who murdered his three children, who tried to beat his wife into abortion."

"At the end of this, I think what you will find, that an absolute monster who killed his own kids and the science is going to be there to back it up."

"And I think at the end of the day, this is what Texans will see and agree with, that this was a very, very bad man who killed his kids."

Rick Perry and many of the Texas powers-that-be fear Cameron Todd Willingham, now more than ever, though they killed him more than six years ago. They have been working mightly to eviscerate the Texas Forensic Science Commission for fear it might describe the arson science associated with the Willingham trial to be crapalicious.

Today, Navarro County DA R. Lowell Thompson ran crying (not literally) from the District Judge Charlie Baird's courtroom to tell on him. While choking back the tears (not literally), R. Lowell told the 3rd Court of Appeals that Judge Baird was going to (gasp!) allow testimony in a Court of Inquiry regarding the possible guilt or innocence of Cameron Todd Willingham. The 3rd said "Stop it."

From The Houston Chronicle:

In an emergency stay, the 3rd Court of Appeals ordered state District Judge Charlie Baird not to rule in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004 for the murder of his three young children. Innocence Project lawyers, who are seeking to clear Willingham's name, have until Oct. 22 to respond.

The 3rd Court's ruling was prompted by a petition by Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson, who earlier had failed in persuading Baird to recuse himself. Thompson contended Baird had not followed state law governing such hearings.

Earlier Thursday, lawyers and expert witnesses told Baird that bogus science and a career criminal's courtroom lies sent the 36-year-old auto mechanic to his execution.

As Willingham's mother and cousin stiffly sat on the courtroom's front bench, fire experts Gerald Hurst and John Lentini testified that not only was a fire inspector's testimony in Willingham's trial based on bad science but that his interpretations were "totally off the wall."

Thursday's testimony came in a court of inquiry one day before the Texas Forensic Science Commission was set to hold a meeting in Austin. Willingham's case is on today's commission agenda.

"Every shred of evidence points to his innocence," said former Gov. Mark White, a member of the Innocence Project's legal team.

White called the series of legal events leading to Willingham's execution "a failure of the system."

White excoriated people with responsibility for the manner in which a critical review of arson investigators' testimony was handled in the days leading to the execution.

Hurst testified that his report was submitted four days before Willingham was to be put to death, but a fax introduced as evidence showed that Gov. Rick Perry got the report little more than a hour before the lethal drugs were administered.

"There were no indications of arson," Hurst said in explaining how assistant state Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez misconstrued evidence.

Lentini, who with four other fire experts also reviewed the investigation, said that all 20 of the indicators Vasquez cited as evidence of arson were bogus.

A San Antonio lawyer, Gerald Goldstein, another member of the Innocence Project team, told Baird that "jailhouse snitch" Johnny Webb twice recanted his earlier trial testimony that Willingham had confessed to killing his children.

Tracing Webb's criminal career to 1987, Goldstein called the man "a cornucopia of crime."

Prosecutors bought Webb's testimony, Goldstein charged, by downgrading an aggravating robbery sentence and arranging an early parole.

Webb first submitted a handwritten motion recanting his testimony in March 2000, Goldstein said. But authorities never provided it to Willingham's appeals lawyer.

"I can't think of a remedy to overcome the harm that's been done," White said in concluding the Innocence Project presentation. "It's a signal to the court, to the leaders of the state, to the Legislature, that it's time for a change in the way we hand out these sentences."

Jailhouse snitch Johnny Webb makes an early appearance in The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham, scheduled for release as soon as I can get my fingers to do my bidding. For now, I'll provide a few actual questions and answers from his testimony. Keep in mind the comment  from just above that "Prosecutors bought Webb's testimony ... by downgrading an aggravating robbery sentence and arranging an early parole." Keep in mind as well that Johnny Webb had a bit of a drug problem.

“How old are you, Johnny?” >> Twenty-two.

“You have had a rather extensive criminal history, have you not?” >> Yes, sir, I have.

“You've been charged and convicted one time or another for stealing a car, is that right?” >> Yes.

“Of delivery of marijuana?” >> Yes, sir.

“Theft?” >> Yes, sir.

“Forgery?” >> Yes, sir.

“And of burglary, in addition to the robbery, is that right?” >> Yes, sir.

“Johnny, what is your problem as far as not being able to stay out of trouble?” >> Drugs.

“I take it you are off drugs now.” >> Yes, I am, except for the medication.

“Okay. You have any trouble with mental impairment or anything like that, Johnny?” >> Not always.

Then Johnny Webb is asked to identify the defendant.

“Is that the same Todd Willingham that is present here in this courtroom today?” >> Yes, it is.

“Is he here seated at the counsel table with his defense attorneys?” >> Do what?

Later he is asked if his testimony has been purchased.

“Johnny, have I ever promised you anything in return for your testimony in this case?” >> No, sir, you haven't.

“As a matter of fact, I told you there is nothing I can do for you.” >> You said there was nothing that no one can do for me.

Johnny Webb was the prosecution's lead witness in the trial of Cameron Todd Willingham. As a skeptical juror, would you have believed the prosecution when they had a jailhouse snitch tell you he would receive no payoff for his testimony? Would you begin to doubt the prosecution case immediately?

Friday Morning Update:
I've purloined two video news reports from yesterday's proceedings. If you prefer, you can view them directly from YouTube here and here.

Willingham, Skinner, Perry and my Fingertips

I missed the Sunday night football game. I'm not sure I missed anything really. It wasn't an exciting matchup and I still don't know who won.

Oh, yeah. And I haven't finished The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham. I had predicted I might finish by kickoff. I also conceded I might run a few days late. I'm now predicting I will run a few days late. It's not that I couldn't have had the words on paper, metaphorically speaking. My problem is that they weren't the right words, and they weren't in the right order.

The book is still growing within me, expressing itself through my fingertips in stuttering text. Sometimes, unfortunately, those fingertips replace sentences, and paragraphs, and even entire blocks of text. Yesterday, they moved the Interlude to the Postlude. Does that make any sense?

My fingertips replace those old words with something I have never read before, something no one has ever read before. Each time, I'm mightily impressed with the results, but my fingertips never seem to be. They keep going back and changing everything, and I can't get them to stop.

I have a chapter and a half to finish, and some notes to write, but my fingertips won't cooperate. And the world moves on without me.

This Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court will listen to Hank Skinner's plea that he be allowed access to DNA evidence that might exonerate him. Given that the people of Texas wish to strap him to a gurney and inject lethal chemicals into his arm, I think it is an entirely reasonable request. Others, however, believe he is simply trying "to game the system."

This Thursday, a Court of Inquiry will continue trying to look into the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Navarro County will ask for a new judge. I believe they are simply tyring "to game the system."

Next Tuesday, Frontline will air its piece on the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. A lot of people will be watching, and some of them would like to learn more about the case.

On the second day of next month, the people of Texas will elect their next governor. I hope that it will not once again be Rick Perry. With respect to that particular election, I am a single-issue guy: Rick Perry is willing to put potentially innocent people to death. For that, I believe he must be removed from office.

Perry ignored the affidavit of this country's foremost fire investigator. The affidavit made crystal clear that the evidence used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham was simply wrong. I suspect that neither Perry nor his hand-picked Board of Pardons and Paroles even bothered to read the affidavit. They gave no hint that they had done so.

With respect to the Willingham case, Rick Perry made a horrible, avoidable mistake that should cost him his political career. It cost Willingham his life. Now Rick Perry is compounding that mistake. He refuses to allow anyone to examine the DNA evidence that might prove Skinner either guilty or innocent.

Amidst all this, I cannot get my fingertips to do my bidding.

News Flash #5 Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham

In the movie Bananas, Woody Allen (aka Fielding Mellish) manages to get  himself involved in overthrowing the Batista-like government of San Marcos. The new regime immediately begins executing the leaders of the previous regime, in assembly line fashion. The charges are read, the prisoner is asked how he pleads, is tied to a post, and shot. (It's kind of like Rick Perry's vision of heaven.) We see the entire case of one prisoner unfold before us.

Q. "You are accused of killing over a thousand people in your term of office... of torturing hundreds of women and children. How do you plead?"
 

A. Guilty... with an explanation.

Those of you who have been monitoring this site hourly to see if I have finally gotten around to publishing anything other than a fluff piece may have noticed that I haven't been posting. To that charge, I plead Guilty, with an explanation.

In News Flash #2 Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham, I announced that I had found the transcripts of the case, and I was going to make Willingham the subject of my third book in the series, and I would have the book complete some time next year.

In this News Flash Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham, I wish to annouce I now hope to complete the book somewhat sooner. I now hope to have the book finished before the next Sunday Night Football game. I may not make it, but I'll be finished much closer to Faith Hill's Sunday Night Football theme song than Guy Lombardo's Auld Lang Syne.

It seemed to me that things were heating up with respect to the Willingham case, and getting the book out next year might make it a day late and a dollar short. So I secretly began writing at a furious pace, to see if I could complete it in a week. I started off pretty fast, but slowed considerably as the lack of sleep caught up with me. I've now settled into a somewhat more moderate, more sustainable, but still aggressive routine, and I'm now satisfied I can turn out a good product by kickoff. Even if I miss by a day or two, I will have written an entire book in around two weeks time.

Then I'll turn it over to my editor / publisher (aka The Skeptical Spouse) and hold my breath. If she tells me it's not good enough, then I'll take it back and do what I need to do to fix it. Anyone can turn out a crappy book in two weeks. (Actually, most people couldn't write even a crappy book in two weeks, but you get my point.)

Assuming the book passes muster, and that's far from a given, then my publisher has agreed to expedite things on her end. The book will go to our printer the next day (cover design is already complete), and should appear on Amazon a few weeks after that. The Kindle edition will appear even more quickly, perhaps some day next week.

I've had to put almost everything else on hold to make this happen, so I'm falling behind on everything else, including posting here. I'm sure you'll understand, now that I've take the time to explain.

And in all seriousness, I hope The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham does something to help with the terrible problem of wrongful conviction in our country.

News Flash #4 Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham

Judge Charlie Baird started the Cameron Todd Willingham hearing today as scheduled, but soon recessed until the 14th. On that day, he will hear arguments regarding Navarro County's motion that he recuse himself. It should be interesting. I'm guessing Rick Perry would be ecstatic to have the hearing delayed until after the election. I suspect those who believe Willingham to have been wrongfully executed will be disappointed at any delay.  We'll just have to wait.

So here's the link, and here's the new modified calendar.  I've added an item based on feedback from the teeming masses who read this blog. I've also added the date of the gubernatorial election.

13 Oct -- US Supreme Court to hear case of Hank Skinner

14 Oct -- Court of Inquiry opens in case of Cameron Todd Willingham
19 Oct -- Frontline airs show re case of Cameron Todd Willingham
30 Oct -- 11th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty (State Capitol, 2PM)
02 Nov -- Perry v. White (Perry +5 as of this post)
08 Nov -- Judge Fine to hear motions on constitutionality of the death penalty

News Flash #3 Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham

Here's another item you can add to your wrongful-conviction calendar.  On October 19, Frontline will open its new season with a show on Cameron Todd Willingham.  Here's the trailer.

I've already updated my calendar:
06 Oct -- Court of Inquiry opens in case of Cameron Todd Willingham

13 Oct -- US Supreme Court to hear case of Hank Skinner

19 Oct -- Frontline airs show re case of Cameron Todd Willingham
08 Nov - Judge Fine to hear motions on constitutionality of the death penalty

Rick Perry's response here.

News Flash #2 Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham

The astute among you have undoubtedly noticed that Hank Skinner is no longer listed as the subject of the next book in The Skeptical Juror series. In fact, if you look over there (upper left, where it says "The Series"), you will notice that no third book is identified.

Here's the deal. I must have the trial transcripts or I cannot write the book. I was unable to obtain the transcripts for the Hank Skinner trial, so I cannot make Hank Skinner the subject of the third book in the series.

Now here's the News Flash.  Last Wednesday, shortly after noon, I discovered that The Innocence Project had, when I wasn't looking, posted the transcripts for the Cameron Todd Willingham trial. About ten seconds thereafter, I decided to make Cameron Todd Willingham the subject of the third book in The Skeptical Juror Series. About 10 more seconds thereafter, I began working on the book.

My goal is to have The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham completed and on Amazon by Christmas!

(I'm supposed to finish my book On The Rate of Wrongful Conviction soon, so that might slow me down a bit.)

(I should also go through the editorial process on The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Susan B. Anthony, since I finished the first draft of that book a while ago and I've let it languish.)

(And I need to continue posting, or my readers won't come back.)

(Also, I'm involved with a couple of wrongful-conviction cases behind the scenes, and those people absolutely deserve my attention.)

(And I do need to pay my mortgage somehow.)

My goal is to have The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham completed and on Amazon early next year.

News Flash #1 Regarding Cameron Todd Willingham

Many of you have probably been lying awake at night wondering when I will finally get around to writing about Cameron Todd Willingham. Finally, you will be able to sleep. I will be writing of Willingham frequently and extensively for a while, beginning immediately with this News Flash, and following immediately with a second.

Willingham was convicted of and executed for the arson murder of his three young children. His case has become a lightning rod for both sides of the death penalty debate. Opponents of the death penalty claim Willingham was convicted based on a seriously flawed arson investigation, and they have nine (count 'em, nine) of the nation's top fire experts backing them up. Proponents say it doesn't matter: Willingham confessed to his wife not long before he was executed. Or so they say.

Texas empanelled and empowered a forensic team to investigate the arson science surrouding the case. Rick Perry quickly neutered that team by replacing some of the commissioners, including the chairman, with his hand-picked cronies. (Did I say cronies?  I meant boot-licking toadies.) The chairman recently attempted to wrap up the committee work with a no-harm, no-foul ruling, but a majority of the other commissioners balked. They would like to actually hear some testimony before shutting down.

That's it for the background. Now for the news flash.

Judge Charles Baird of Austin has agreed to open a Court of Inquiry to determine whether Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongfully convicted and, by extension, wrongfully executed. He will hear testimony next Wednesday and Thursday, so mark your calendars.

Here's what my calendar is looking like:

06 Oct -- Court of Inquiry opens in case of Cameron Todd Willingham

13 Oct -- US Supreme Court to hear case of Hank Skinner

08 Nov - Judge Fine to hear motions on constitutionality of the death penalty

Couple these events with the 11 June decision by Judge Paul Murphy that Texas must turn over for DNA testing a 1" hair sample that might prove The Despicable Claude Jones was wrongfully executed, and you have a witches' brew of death penalty cases for Rick Perry to chew on. (The metaphor got away from me, but I'll just leave it.)

Click here to see how Rick Perry is handling the news.

Texas Death Penalty on Trial: Judge Fine Sets a Date

I wrote of Judge Kevin Fine first in Now For Another Cosmic Moment after he granted a hearing to the defense team for John Green. The defense team had argued their client should not be subject to the death penalty because the death penalty was unconstitutional. Judge Fine, admitting to his concern that Texas had probably already executed innocent people, scheduled a hearing. Texas appealed and lost.

Now I learn from My Fox Houston that Judge Kevin Fine has scheduled the hearing for November 8 and expects that the hearing might last two weeks. The article was only four paragraphs long. I like the last one best.

Prosecutors say they are not opposed to a hearing [that] looks at the constitutionality of the death penalty law, but object to any hearing that would look at whether Texas has executed an innocent person.

The prosecutors were previously opposed to looking into the constitutionality of the death penalty, but apparently changed their opinion after the appellate court ruled against them. And I will bet dollars to doughnut holes that the prosecutors deeply and sincerely object to any hearing that would consider whether Texas has executed an innocent person.

Particularly so if that person is Cameron Todd Willingham or Shaka Sankofa (both of whom I have yet to write about), or Johnny Frank Garrett, or David Wayne Spence, or Robert Nelson Drew, or Carlos DeLuna, or Odell Barnes, or a long list of others I intend to document in this blog.

Certainly had Tim Cole not died on death row before Texas could execute him, certainly had he not succumbed of asthma before Texas could plunge lethal chemicals into his arm, certainly then the prosecution would object to discussing his case as well.