Will we ever know truth of Willingham case?

the arson investigator whose recent report was so critical of the methods used to condemn Willingham, only says arson wasn't proved; he doesn't say that the evidence rules out arson.

For the very good reason that is impossible to say more than that. You cannot say a fire was not caused by arson, only that it was.

This case highlights the sorry state of forensic science that is being allowed into the courts. If he was innocent, Willingham is not the first person to be convicted in this country on the basis of bogus science presented as fact.

If there is any doubt whatsoever, as there obviously is/was in this particular case, the death penalty should NOT be applied.

I was adamantly pro death penalty until I started reading up on the actual reality of the death penalty. What convinced me to become anti-death penalty is the plain way in which it's arbitrarily imposed.

Who is a bigger criminal, and who created more havoc in society, Cameron Willingham, or Bernie Madoff?

Dunno. It seems pretty clear Republicans don't care much about expending resources on finding out in this case or anywhere else someone is unjustly convicted. I just read about another man freed this week after nearly two decades on death row.

My conscience is pretty clear that the people on my side of the fence are expending maximum effort to prevent injustice. The Innocence Project and Miranda are the doing of the hated Liberals.

I give you props for raising the subject, but perhaps you might want to actually raise hell. Call what Rick Perry is doing a the cover up and a crime that it is. Flat out call the man a liar at every press opportunity for a few weeks and you might get a response.

What Perry has done is wrong. The state went out of its way to ensure it could take the life of a man who in all likelihood did not do the crime for which he was executed. We don't execute people for being mean nasty people, we execute them if they did the murder for which they stand accused and no other.

That's the deal, that's why we put weapons in the hands of some and hand the power of life and death to others. The deal is it must always be scrupulously fair if the state is going to take a life.

Not sorta.

Not kinda.

Not statistically over time.

But fair and honestly done this and every other time.

I am not an anti-death penalty absolutist. Stick the needle in Tim McVeigh and the D.C. Sniper for sure. But absent ironclad forensic evidence, and I mean blood dripping down their hands, walking out of the bank with the money, taped interviews from start to finish certainty it's life without parole.

You think I am not fair myself sometimes, but it is almost always in cases where someone's life is the issue that I really get hot. Going to invade and bomb a country, make sure you aren't lying about why.

So, Governor, if you dare to make yourself the representative the interests of The People, don't lie about your motives or your actions in a case where you execute a fellow citizen just because it's popular around election time.

Rod, if Willingham was innocent, why do you want to see him in prison without parole? Is there some requirement for unlikable people (in your eyes) to be locked away? I hope you reconsider and rewrite this part of your post.

With some of the previous commenters, I'd strongly caution against circumstantial evidence (i. e., "but he was a monster anyways") that has little to do with the fact that a plausibly innocent man was executed on Gov. Perry's watch and now all the Governor can do is insult the man he had executed. What a shameful state of affairs.

I don't see how it is in even the tiniest way relevant that Willingham made a rude gesture at his ex-wife and told her to go to hell. We know nothing about their relationship. For all we know she could have killed the children and framed him for it. Or maybe they both just hate each other. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his personal nobility--much less his guilt. And as many people already pointed out, "couldn't DISPROVE arson" is criminologically meaningless. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Rick Perry probably keeps talking about Texas seceding so much because he wants to make sure the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction over him.

It never ceases to amaze me that people with very little knowledge of the facts of this case and no knowledge of the applicable law, declare Willingham either innocent or have a reasonable doubt (that's not the standard, by the way) as to his guilt. Spare me.

Secondly, on "not proving arson" yet "not ruling it out" either, who is the burden of proof on here?

Not the state's. This isn't a trial, remember? Post conviction, it is the defense that has the burden.

While I agree that Willingham's actual, final words add an interesting human element to the story, they don't really prove anything.
Could it be that he was lashing out and cursing because he knew he was innocent, and being executed unjustly? Could it be that he was bitter at how his life had turned out (including the loss of his own children, and then being blamed for it)? How angelic was he supposed to be?
I think it's fairly clear that Texas executed an innocent man.

"Conservative right wing people, who are otherwise skeptical of the ability of government to solve problems and run social service programs, give government unlimited respect when it comes to law enforcement and the courts."

Unless it's to jail terrorist suspects from Gitmo. Then suddenly there's some huge risk of escapes from Super Max prisons, a rish that doesn't apply to convicted domestic terrorists or your run of the mill serial killers.

Amen treebeard.

If you look carefully at the NEW YORKER article, for many years Mrs. Willingham believed her husband innocent, and fought for him. She talked about how he HAD been abusive in the past, but had gotten better, particularly as a father. She recalled that the grieving couple had been driving in the family car together when police made a massive road stop to arrest him, scaring both of them. After several years, she read the court file (dominated by the suspect "expert testimony" and concluded he was guilty after all. She denied his request to be buried next to his daughters. So, while I don't condone anyone being foul-mouthed to their wife, even after she consummates a divorce, it is understandable profanity from a man about to die knowing he may NOT be buried next to his babies. As to the statement that the forensic reports for the defense do not prove Willingham innocent, they do demolish the primary, in fact virtually the only, evidence that he is guilty. Without SOME evidence of guilt, there is no case for conviction, much less execution.

Rod is correct that the real issue is the governor's fear of the truth. Willingham aside, it appears that a whole lot of fire marshalls are working off of absolute nonsense as sound science, and have been allowed to testify as experts based on a number of unproven, bogus, assumptions. THAT needs to be dealt with for the safety of every law abiding citizen now living, who may be so unfortunate as to have their house catch fire. If its not a bogus homicide charge, it could be the basis for your insurance company denying your claim, or, having you prosecuted for arson!