I stand by the idea that the scariest person in all of the world is a prosecutor… his or her discretion is almost unbounded — and that includes choosing evidence.
News of the tragedy, which took place on December 23, 1991, spread through Corsicana. A small city fifty-five miles northeast of Waco, it had once been the center of Texas’s first oil boom, but many of the wells had since dried up, and more than a quarter of the city’s twenty thousand inhabitants had fallen into poverty. Several stores along the main street were shuttered, giving the place the feel of an abandoned outpost.
Willingham and his wife, who was twenty-two years old, had virtually no money. Stacy worked in her brother’s bar, called Some Other Place, and Willingham, an unemployed auto mechanic, had been caring for the kids. The community took up a collection to help the Willinghams pay for funeral arrangements.
Fire investigators, meanwhile, tried to determine the cause of the blaze. (Willingham gave authorities permission to search the house: “I know we might not ever know all the answers, but I’d just like to know why my babies were taken from me.”) Douglas Fogg, who was then the assistant fire chief in Corsicana, conducted the initial inspection. He was tall, with a crew cut, and his voice was raspy from years of inhaling smoke from fires and cigarettes. He had grown up in Corsicana and, after graduating from high school, in 1963, he had joined the Navy, serving as a medic in Vietnam, where he was wounded on four occasions. He was awarded a Purple Heart each time. After he returned from Vietnam, he became a firefighter, and by the time of the Willingham blaze he had been battling fire—or what he calls “the beast”—for more than twenty years, and had become a certified arson investigator. “You learn that fire talks to you,” he told me.
He was soon joined on the case by one of the state’s leading arson sleuths, a deputy fire marshal named Manuel Vasquez, who has since died. Short, with a paunch, Vasquez had investigated more than twelve hundred fires. Arson investigators have always been considered a special breed of detective. In the 1991 movie “Backdraft,” a heroic arson investigator says of fire, “It breathes, it eats, and it hates. The only way to beat it is to think like it. To know that this flame will spread this way across the door and up across the ceiling.” Vasquez, who had previously worked in Army intelligence, had several maxims of his own. One was “Fire does not destroy evidence—it creates it.” Another was “The fire tells the story. I am just the interpreter.” He cultivated a Sherlock Holmes-like aura of invincibility. Once, he was asked under oath whether he had ever been mistaken in a case. “If I have, sir, I don’t know,” he responded. “It’s never been pointed out.”
***UPDATED*** The other shoe drops… the then prosecutor, now judge, tells his side of the story here:
The Willingham trial has become a sort of cause celebre by anti-death penalty proponents because it seems to be an example of outmoded scientific techniques which led to a miscarriage of justice. In fact, the trial testimony you reported in 1991 contains overwhelming evidence of guilt completely independent of the undeniably flawed forensic report.
Always omitted from any examination of the actual trial are the following facts:
1. The event which caused the three childrens’ deaths was the third attempt by Todd Willingham to kill his children established by the evidence. He had attempted to abort both pregnancies by vicious attacks on his wife in which he beat and kicked his wife with the specific intent to trigger miscarriages;
2. The “well-established burns” suffered by Willingham were so superficial as to suggest that the same were self-inflicted in an attempt to divert suspicion from himself;
3. Blood-gas analysis at Navarro Regional Hospital shortly after the homicide revealed that Willingham had not inhaled any smoke, contrary to his statement which detailed “rescue attempts;”
4. Consistent with typical Navarro County death penalty practice, Willingham was offered the opportunity to eliminate himself as a suspect by polygraph examination. Such opportunity was rejected in the most vulgar and insulting manner;
5. Willingham was a serial wife abuser, both physically and emotionally. His violent nature was further established by evidence of his vicious attacks on animals which is common to violent sociopaths;
6. Witness statements established that Willingham was overheard whispering to his deceased older daughter at the funeral home, “You’re not the one who was supposed to die.” (The origin of the fire occured in the infant twins bedroom) and;
7. Any escape or rescue route from the burning house was blocked by a refrigerator which had been pushed against the back door, requring any person attempting escape to run through the conflagration at the front of the house.
Co-counsel Alan Bristol and I offered Willingham the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty in return for a sentence of life imprisonment. Such offer was rejected in an obscene and potentially violent confrontation with his defense counsel.
That’s why I qualified the post title with “If True”.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
I’ve always thought the death penalty issue came down, like so many liberal issues, to a matter of aesthetics. It’s not pretty when your government is a “murderer”. I agree and might even join them if they would also consider it equally unseemly when the government acts as a thief, bizzybody and bully.
I don’t think this is mere aesthetics… I don’t want to err on the “you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet” either. Justice is ugly, but if justice is in fact resulting in factually and legally innocent people going to prison in sufficient numbers — especially the extreme sanction — then something’s broken. If the politics of prosecution and forensic “science” continues apace we’re in real trouble.
I recall a while back a producer from Forensic Files commented on one of your posts, Floyd.
He said that it was the arson investigations that were most likely to be wrong.
I recall that…. A lot of people assume a retired firefighter must know what he’s talking about, but like a lot of professions myths and legends get wrapped up into truth. People are only as good as they’re training and their own moxie in learning. I don’t like the death penalty unless there is overwhelming eyewitness evidence. or a confession coupled with strong circumstantial. If the death penalty were limited to a few cases and then utilized it would be just. This is one more pebble in my “against the death penalty” scale as a procedural matter. Morally I have no qualms with the death penalty itself (that would make God in the OT immoral), but even He put in procedural checks (Due Process if you will).
Would those few cases be like Chuck Manson?
My best example is O.J. Simpson. Double murder is a capital offense — as it should be. I think OJ killed two people and got away with it. I wouldn’t have given him the death penalty. It was a circumstantial case — and while I think the evidence is overwhelming of his guilt… once he’s gone there’s no going back. If a mistake is made and he’s in prison for life there’s some chance to correct mistakes.
I’m not sure where the line is drawn. If I’m so sure OJ’s guilty then why not give him the death penalty? I don’t expect a 100% proof standard either (or do I?). I struggle with the issue often.
I have no problem with scrapping the death penalty. But with it should come a substantial effort to fix some of the lousy sentencing. Not sure how often it happens, but one of the news shows highlighted a 20-year-old murder where a boyfriend of a wife murdered her husband. He pled down, is doing three years – a whole year longer than Michael Vick, two years longer than Pete Rose and this didn’t even happen in California.
So I take it most of the facts, as presented in the rebuttal article Floyd later updated his post with, were never in the article in the New Yorker? If so that’s a travesty of journalism.
You got it John FN…
It’s amazing, watching big-time writers get rewarded for doing shit I would be fired for.
you wouldn’t get fired if your editor and publisher shared your worldview and agenda…
Believe it or not, most of the places I worked I would.
One of the problems the anti-capital punishment types have is that the objects of their compassion are usually pretty nasty people. Sure, there is a possibility may not have committed that particular murder, but they also have a record of being suspect in other murders, or such a long history of violent crime that it seems perfectly in character for them to have finally killed in the case in which they’ve been convicted. So it’s hard to get all worked up about those cases of “injustice”. (If anything, the injustice was not severely punishing them back when they were petty criminals.) The antis need someone who “cleans up well” to make their case.
(And as this particular case shows, “the best why to lie really is to tell the truth selectively.”