The "Investigative Committee on the Willingham/Willis Case" of the Texas Forensic Science Commission is holding secret, private, closed-door meetings without any public notice to discuss the Todd Willingham investigation. Willingham was executed in 2004 for an arson that killed his three young daughters.
Dr. Craig Beyler, one of the nation's top fire experts, who was hired by the Forensic Science Commission to investigate the case, submitted a report to the Commission in August 2009 that said "a finding of arson could not be sustained".
Other committees of the FSC are also being held in secret. Since the four-person Willingham/Willis committee does not form a quorum of the entire nine member Commission, it is not subject to the Open Meetings Act - which means it can legally deliberate in secret. However, the members of the Commission can vote to make all meetings public and to follow the rules of the Open Meetings Act.
Unless, the policy is changed, the public will not be privy to discussions by the four-member panel of the Commission that is responsible for scrutinizing the reliability of the arson investigation used to convict Todd Willingham.
Given the fact that Governor Rick Perry abruptly replaced the former chair of the FSC two days before it was set to discuss the Beyler report last October and named John Bradley as the new chair, it is imperative that all committee meetings are held in public in order to help allay fears that Perry and Bradley are orchestrating a cover-up of the execution of an innocent person until at least after the November election.
I believe all discussions and deliberations regarding the Todd Willingham investigation should be conducted in meetings that are open to the public and members of the media in order to enhance transparency and public confidence in the commission's work.
Secret meetings run contrary to a basic principle of public service. State law and the Texas Constitution give some investigatory bodies authority to conduct business confidentially. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct is one. The forensics commission, however, is not.
Nowhere did lawmakers give the commission that latitude when they created it in 2005. Procedures the commission adopted in January are silent on the matter. Some commissioners said after Friday's meeting that they were surprised that committee sessions would be done in secret.
Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle wrote in a commentary Sunday that "Friday's meeting made it clear that Bradley will succeed in delaying any final report on the Willingham matter until after the November election.".
Grand juries are secret mainly out of concern for the reputations of people who end up not being charged with a crime, and partly for the safety of witnesses.
But Willingham is dead and all the witnesses appeared at his trial. I can imagine evidence or witnesses that the commission may legitimately want to hear privately, but not in the Willingham case.
Having decided to have the committee work done in secret, Bradley named himself to the two most sensitive committees: the one handling the Willingham case and, even more importantly, the committee that screens complaints and recommends which ones to accept.
under its new chairman's leadership the agency has already become a "secretive, bureaucratic body perceived as protecting licensed professionals rather than policing them."
A Democratic Houston judge who last week ruled that the procedures used to convict and sentence someone to death in Texas are unconstitutional has put his ruling in abeyance and scheduled a hearing on April 27 to hear evidence on the issue (Read more here). State District Judge Kevin Fine said he wants more information before making a final decision about whether the state's death penalty statute protects innocent people from execution. Judge Fine has asked Harris County prosecutors and defense attorneys to submit motions on the due process issue by April 12. Fine will then have an evidentiary hearing April 27 when testimony on whether innocent people have been executed in Texas is set to be presented. The defense attorneys are still determining whom they might call to testify at the April 27 hearing, but they said it might include officials connected to the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, whose 2004 execution for the deaths of his three daughters in a 1991 house fire near Corsicana is now being questioned.
With the hearing in Judge Fine's court looming on April 27, a group of people, students and non-students alike, are planning to spend their spring break next week learning about the problems in the Texas death penalty system and training on how to organize to change Texas public policy. Everyone is welcome to attend.
Guest speakers include six innocent, exonerated people who together spent 65 years on death row, Curtis McCarty, Shujaa Graham, Ron Keine, Derrick Jamison, Perry Cobb and Juan Melendez. (Speaker bios)
Today, more misbehavior by John Bradley has come to light. He tried to interfere with a legislative hearing held Jan 11 by the Chair of the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.
As I wrote yesterday in a post on BOR, John Bradley "should be removed as chair of the Texas Commission on Forensic Science. He has proven by his handling of the first meeting that his main goal was to cover-up and impede the investigation into whether Texas relied on faulty arson evidence to execute a person who did not kill anyone".
(State Rep. Pete) Gallego had a committee hearing on Jan. 11 to focus on rules of evidence. He invited Beyler to testify.
In a Jan. 26 letter, Beyler told Gallego: "Mr. Bradley.... asked me not to appear before your committee. He was apparently concerned about your motives in inviting me and was very concerned that you wished to do the Commission harm."
"I was not at all convinced by his concerns and decided to come to Austin. As it turns out, his fears were wholly without merit. I very much appreciated that the committee members did not ask questions about the pending TFSC work," Beyler wrote in the letter to Gallego.
The veteran lawmaker said it's its improper to tell witnesses not to show up for a hearing.
"I'm really disappointed that he (John Bradley) would attempt to interfere in a legislative hearing in that fashion," Gallego said.
But Bradley, the district attorney in Williamson County, say he simply told Beyler "that his status as an expert in a case pending before the Forensic Science Commission made it potentially a conflict to serve as a witness in a hearing related to such matters before the conclusion of an investigation."
"Mr. Beyler had already damaged his reputation for impartiality by publicly commenting on the recent appointment of new commissioners. By entering the political arena, he gave ammunition to those people who might question his impartiality," Bradley said. "Having heard Mr. Beyler's presentation to the House Committee, it appears that he wisely edited his remarks to avoid further damaging his reputation. No one prevented him from testifying. It is naive to think that his invitation was unrelated to his work for the commission."
But Gallego said: "Our hearing was about the rules of evidence, and we told everybody that up front. There was no effort on my part to talk about anything else. If those cases came up by name, they came up peripherally."
Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle has a column today on how Rick Perry's handpicked puppet/chair of the Texas Forensic Science Commission violated the Texas Open Meetings Act (PDF) at Friday's meeting, which was held in Harlingen. The Dallas Morning News' Trailblazer blog first reported on Bradley's violation of the TOMA. Bradley should be removed as chair of the Commission. He has proven by his handling of the first meeting that his main goal was to cover-up and impede the investigation into whether Texas relied on faulty arson evidence to execute a person who did not kill anyone.
One of the Commission members should offer a motion at the next meeting of the Commission to recommend that Rick Perry replaces Bradley as chair. Bradley is an elected district attorney. He knows about the TOMA. He obviously violated the act on purpose as part of his cover-up of the Willingham investigation. The commission members should also read up on Robert's Rules of Order to make sure they know how to exercise their own authority to control Bradley.
Friday started badly for John Bradley, the Williamson County district attorney selected last fall by Gov. Rick Perry to ride herd over the troublesome scientists on the Texas Forensic Science Commission.
His first official act of the morning was to violate the state's open meetings law.
Then his day got worse.
This was the first meeting of the commission under Bradley, who was appointed last September. His first official act was to cancel a meeting three days later at which the commission was scheduled to receive a report from a nationally renowned arson expert hired by the commission in its first high-profile case.
The meeting had drawn national attention because the expert found that the arson investigation that helped lead to the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the murder of his children was badly flawed. It was especially controversial because Perry had rejected a request to delay Willingham's execution based on similar expert analysis.
Bradley unilaterally wrote the agenda for Friday's meeting to focus on new policies and procedures, omitting the Willingham report. He also unilaterally chose Harlingen (which is as close to Mexico City as to Fort Worth, where three of the nine uncompensated and busy commission members live), making wrong my snide prediction that he would hold the meeting in Presidio to discourage reporters.
The session took place in a modest meeting room at a Marriott Courtyard Hotel. A few area reporters were seated around the walls, as well as a handful of protesters carrying signs. A camera crew from the national Innocence Project streamed the meeting live on the group's Web site.
But Bradley evicted an Austin-based documentary crew before the meeting started. One of its members called the attorney general's office in Austin, which sent a message to Barbara Dean, the assistant district attorney who has attended all of the commission's meetings, providing legal guidance since its inception.
Film crew admitted
An hour and a half into the meeting, Dean, seated behind Bradley, tapped him on the shoulder and quietly spoke into his ear. He announced a 10-minute break, and when the meeting resumed the film crew was in the room.
When I asked Bradley about the matter, he curtly told me to talk to the film crew. I said I had and he replied with annoyance: "Then you know."
His defensiveness was understandable. Enforcement of the Open Meetings Act is the responsibility of local district attorneys such as himself.
Usurping power from commissioners: Bradley refused to put "action items" on the agenda that were designated in the minutes from the last meeting.
Hijacking the meeting agenda: The chairman arrived in Harlingen with a detailed set of "rules" that were never authorized by the commission and insisted they focus on them exclusively.
Concealing key activities from commissioners: Most FSC members were never told the chair was drafting rules nor did they authorize him to do so. They were first informed of the rules' existence and given a draft the day before the meeting.
Wasting commissioners' time: After spending all day on "rules," the chairman revealed at the end of the meeting that the commission had no rulemaking authority, announcing that these were only voluntary "guidelines" representing an informal agreement that is "not even enforceable on ourselves."
Ignoring "process": Though the Commission historically operated under Robert's Rules, Bradley ran the meeting on a "consensus" basis, which removed limits on the chair, obfuscated members' right to control the process, and allowed Bradley to railroad through his agenda.
Dissembling: When a commissioner told the chairman her vote hinged on whether old cases already in the pipeline - including ones where the Commission had already paid outside consultants (there are only two) - would be subjected to the new committee process, Bradley said no, they would not.
After the vote, when the meeting had nearly ended, Bradley insisted that Willingham's case must go through "part of" the new committee process. If he'd been honest about that during the debate, IMO a majority of commissioners present wouldn't have supported his rules.
The next meeting of the Forensic Science Commission is set for April 23, which is not only after the March 2 primary, but after the April 13 date for a runoff, which would be held if no one wins a majority in the Republican primary.
Today, Saturday October 24, is the 10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty, where the focus will be the Todd Willingham case and other cases involving innocent people sentenced to death. The march starts at 2 PM at the Texas Capitol in Austin.
Three innocent, exonerated former death row prisoners will be among the special guests today at the Tenth Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty. Curtis McCarty spent 19 years on death row in Oklahoma before being exonerated and released in 2007. Shujaa Graham spent three years on death row in California and Ron Keine spent almost two years on death row in New Mexico, which abolished the death penalty in 2009.
Also speaking will be the penpal of Todd Willingham, Elizabeth Gilbert, who first investigated his innocence. Todd's last lawyer Walter Reaves will also speak. Reaves submitted information on the day of Willingham's execution to Governor Rick Perry saying there was new evidence indicating Willingham may be innocent and that urged Perry to stay the execution. Of course, Perry ignored the new information and Willingham was executed on Feb 17, 2004.
The last request of Todd Willingham to his parents was "please don't ever stop fighting to vindicate me."
Please attend the march to support the Willingham family as they fight to prove that Todd Willingham was innocent.
Speakers at the march include three innocent, now-exonerated death row prisoners (Shujaa Graham, Curtis McCarty and Ron Keine), Jeff Blackburn (Chief Counsel of the Innocence Project of Texas), Jeanette Popp (a mother whose daughter was murdered but who asked the DA not to seek the death penalty), Elizabeth Gilbert (the penpal of Todd Willingham who first pushed his innocence and helped his family find a fire expert to investigate), Walter Reaves (the last attorney for Todd Willingham, who fought for him through the execution and continues to fight to exonerate him), Terri Been whose brother Jeff Wood is on death row convicted under the Law of Parties even though he did not kill anyone, and Anna Terrell the mother of Reginald Blanton who is scheduled for execution in Texas on Oct 27 three days after the march, plus others to be announced.
The march starts at 2 PM on October 24 at the Texas Capitol. We will gather at the Texas Capitol at the gates leading into the Capitol on the sidewalk at 11th Street, march down Congress Avenue to 6th street, then back to the South Steps of the Capitol for a rally to abolish the death penalty.
The case of a Corsicana man executed in 2004 for arson murder will be at the center of an anti-death penalty rally today at the Texas Capitol.
Local attorney Walter M. Reaves Jr., who represented Cameron Todd Willingham during the final part of his appeals process, planned to attend the 10th annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty, along with four people who were exonerated after being on death row. The event is being organized by a number of groups that oppose the death penalty.
As part of the event, activists plan to deliver a petition to Gov. Rick Perry that urges him to say that the 1991 fire that killed Willingham's three young daughters was not arson, said Scott Cobb, president of the Texas Moratorium Network. It will also ask for Texas executions to be suspended and for Perry to appoint an impartial body to examine the state's death penalty system, he said.
Willingham's case, and the role Perry has played in the execution and subsequent investigation into whether it was flawed, has been in the national spotlight. Attention started mounting earlier this month after Perry abruptly replaced four people on the nine-member Texas Forensic Science Commission, including its chairman.
The 10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty will be held at the Texas Capitol in Austin on October 24, 2009. The march and rally will include the delivery of a petition with thousands of signatures urging Governor Rick Perry and the State of Texas to acknowledge that the fire in the Cameron Todd Willingham case was not arson, therefore no crime was committed and on February 17, 2004 Texas executed an innocent man. The petition also urges Perry to suspend executions and appoint a balanced and independent commission to examine all aspects of the Texas death penalty system to determine what went wrong in the Willingham case and how to prevent the execution of innocent people. People can sign the petition at www.camerontoddwillingham.com.
The last request of Todd Willingham to his parents was "please don't ever stop fighting to vindicate me." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 2006 that in the modern judicial system there has not been "a single case-not one-in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops."
On Saturday Oct 24 in Austin, people from across Texas will gather and shout out that Todd Willingham was innocent to show the world and Rick Perry that there are people in Texas who are convinced that Todd was innocent and that executions in Texas should be stopped before another innocent person is executed.
The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday that former Texas Governor Mark White has said Texas needs to take a serious look at replacing the death penalty with life without parole. "There is a very strong case to be made for a review of our death penalty statutes and even look at the possibility of having life without parole so we don't look up one day and determined that we as the state of Texas have executed someone who is in fact innocent," said White.
Speakers and other confirmed attendees at the 10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty will include three innocent, now-exonerated death row prisoners (Shujaa Graham, Curtis McCarty and Ron Keine), Jeff Blackburn (Chief Counsel of the Innocence Project of Texas), Jeanette Popp (a mother whose daughter was murdered but who asked the DA not to seek the death penalty), Elizabeth Gilbert (the penpal of Todd Willingham who first investigated and then advocated for his innocence), Walter Reaves (the last attorney for Todd Willingham, who fought for him through his execution and continues to fight to exonerate him), Terri Been whose brother Jeff Wood is on death row convicted under the Law of Parties even though he did not kill anyone, and Anna Terrell the mother of Reginald Blanton who is scheduled for execution in Texas on Oct 27 three days after the march, plus others to be announced.
Panel Discussion: Friday, October 23, the night before the march, there will be a panel discussion on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin at 7 PM with Elizabeth Gilbert (a Houston teacher and playwright, who befriended Todd Willingham and is featured in the New Yorker article by David Grann about the case. She became convinced of his innocence and was able to push for a new arson investigation that exonerated him.), Shujaa Graham and Curtis McCarty, who will both speak about what it is like to be innocent and sentenced to death as they were. Graham spent three years on death row in California. McCarty spent 19 years on death row in Oklahoma. They were both exonerated. The panel is in the Sinclair Suite (room 3.128) of the Texas Student Union on Guadalupe Street.
Elizabeth Gilbert, Shujaa Graham and Curtis McCarty will be available for media interviews earlier in the day on Friday, Oct 23. Call Scott Cobb at 512-552-4743 to arrange an interview.
Schedule for the 10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty, Saturday Oct 24 in Austin
1 PM - 2 PM Members of the press are invited to attend a press availability in the Speaker's Committee Room (2.W6) inside the Capitol building. The purpose is to allow the media to ask questions and conduct interviews with the speakers listed below.
2 PM Marchers start to gather at the Texas Capitol on the sidewalk by the South gate of the Capitol entrance on Congress Avenue at 11th Street
2:30 or 2:45 Start to march down Congress Ave to 6th Street and back to Capitol
3:00 or 3:15 Rally on the South Steps of the Texas Capitol with speakers mentioned above
The march is sponsored by many organizations, including Texas Moratorium Network, the Austin chapter of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, the Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement, Texas Students Against the Death Penalty, Texas Death Penalty Education and Resource Center, Kids Against the Death Penalty, Sister Helen Prejean, Journey of Hope ... From Violence to Healing, the Texas Civil Rights Project, Reprieve, Iranians for Peace and Justice, UT Campus Progress, Democrats for Life of Texas, S.H.A.P.E Community Center in Houston, the Dallas Peace Center, ALIVE Against the Death Penalty (Germany), Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort (France) and many others.
If anyone would like to be listed as a sponsor of the 10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty, just fill out this form. It's free to be a sponsor, we only ask that you help spread the word to your friends so that they attend if they can be in Austin or sign the petition that we will deliver at the march.
For more information and the complete list of sponsors, visit www.MarchforAbolition.org or call Scott Cobb at 512-552-4743.
Thursday, I posted the video from that night's CNN AC 360 program when Todd Willingham's trial lawyer was on the program and made remarks that I thought violated his attorney-client obligations, which bind a lawyer even after his client has died. Now, some attorneys have begun posting about David Martin and some also seem to agree that Martin violated his ethical obligations as an attorney to his former client.
After reading this, if you are think David Martin should be investigated, click here to download a grievance form and send it to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, State Bar of Texas.
My position is that a) all facts the lawyer learns in the course of representation is privileged; and b) this privilege survives the end of representation and the client's death. So, for example, the fact that the defense team did its own pseudoscientific experiment would be privileged and not something that the ex-lawyer would be free to reveal (without the client's permission).
as a lawyer you ought to have some duty to not damage your client. At the very least, Mr. Martin is damaging Todd's reputation, and his ability to obtain some relief in through the forensic commission. The fact that he aligning himself with Gov. Perry ought to tell you something.
At least three other lawyers have now also posted their thoughts on David Martin. Here is one on her blog "Preaching to the Choir".
I have nothing nice to say about David Martin after watching this appalling performance, so perhaps I should not say anything at all. Except, I have no duty of loyalty to David Martin. But I do feel a duty of loyalty to my profession. I happen to think that defending people is one of the most noble things you can do. I can go on quite a tear about how we defenders of the constitution are the true patriots and the most noble actors of all in the criminal justice system. I take my job seriously. Very seriously. My clients trust me with their lives, just as Todd Willingham had to trust David Martin. As much as I rail against prosecutors and cops who bend the rules or cut corners, no one offends me more than the defense attorney who does not live up to my high ideals for the profession. From what I've seen in this video, David Martin is the kind of defense attorney I don't ever want to be.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Martin has no grossly improper motive, like he's been promised a judgeship by Perry if he does everything in his power to undermine the evidence of Willingham's innocence. If Martin truly believes what he's saying to be true, his statements are the most irresponsible, unethical, improper I have ever heard from the mouth of a criminal defense lawyer. Outrageously wrong. Utterly disgraceful.
So we know that Martin was spouting bullshit. (He claimed to have just returned from "chasing cows," so maybe there's a reason.) We also know that at least one thing he talked about, the lighter fluid experiment, is covered by the work-product privilege. It's a secret. He had no business telling anyone. A clear violation of his ethical obligations.
And then there's the matter of going on the air to declare his client guilty. Why in the world would he do that? To garner business? Unlikely. That's not the way you attract clients. For the glory of national television? Some people just can't resist. Whatever the reason, he was wrong. Whatever he was thinking, he wasn't thinking enough. That duty of loyalty. That obligation not to disadvantage. That lack of judgment. That putting his own interests before his client's.
Eileen Smith of Texas Monthly has also written about Martin, saying in her blog "In the Pink":
Willingham's trial lawyer David Martin is such a caricature of what people think of Texans that I was mortified watching it. Haven't we been the posterior region of enough jokes this year, what with all the secession talk and Dancing With the Stars? And I'm not even a native Texan. So really, you guys should be extra-extra mortified.
Right from the start of the interview, you just know it's going to be bad. For one, Martin is wearing a cowboy hat that's about to fall off his head. And two, the guy's drunk as a Honduran skunk.
The Texas Bar website explains how to file a complaint and what the grievance system is.
The grievance system is designed to protect the public from unethical lawyers licensed to practice law in Texas. Lawyers are held accountable to a set of rules, called the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers who violate those rules are prosecuted under a set of rules, called the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Much like the criminal system, you, as the aggrieved, are not a party to the disciplinary action; you are a witness. Allegations of misconduct by an attorney are taken very seriously, and are reviewed and investigated carefully by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. If you believe that an attorney has violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, you may report this information in writing to the State Bar in the form of a grievance.
Tonight on CNN AC360, Todd Willingham's trial lawyer David Martin, the person who was supposed to have vigorously defended his client, made an appearance on national TV arguing for his former client's guilt. Martin, appearing in a cowboy hat, drawled that the report submitted to the Texas Forensic Science Commission by Dr Craig Beyler was one of the "least objective reports" he has ever read. "This is supposed to be a scientific report?", said Martin.
Steve Mills of the Chicago Tribune, then said that the arson investigation methods used in 1991 were not based on science. "That is absurd" said Martin.
You have to see the shocking video of Martin's appearance. This shows why the Texas death penalty system can allow innocent people to be executed. Willingham did not have a chance with Martin as his lawyer. Anderson Cooper at one point said, "you sound like a sheriff", "you don't sound like a defense lawyer".
Martin said, "this is riduculous. This is absurd. The defense lawyer doesn't have to believe the client. This is an absurdity."
.
Also on tonight's AC 360, they reported on a juror from Willingham's trial that told them she now has doubts about Wilingham's guilt. The juror also says that she was allowed to be a juror even though her family was good friends with the fire investigator whose testimony helped convict Willingham. Her family's close relationship with Doug Fogg would have likely been grounds for overturning his conviction and getting Willingham a new trial if it had been raised before his execution.
the controversy has led juror Dorenda Brokofsky to think twice about the decision she made in a jury room in 1992.
"I don't sleep at night because of a lot of this," Brokofsky said. "I have gone back and forth in my mind trying to think of anything that we missed. I don't like the fact that years later someone is saying maybe we made a mistake, that the facts aren't what they could've been."
"I do have doubts now," she said. "I mean, we can only go with what we knew at the time, but I don't like the fact now that maybe this man was executed by our word because of evidence that is not true. It may not be true now. And I don't like the fact that I may have to face my God and explain what I did."
Also today, the Dallas Morning News ran a column by Lynn Wooley in which he speculates that Rick Perry's handling of the Willingham case and Kay Bailey Hutchison's so far less than fully energetic campaign effort, could cause some new candidates to enter the race for the Republican nomination for Texas governor. He says both Perry and Hutchison "have issues that must be cleared up - and soon - or other big names are going to enter the race."
What if the commission concludes that Willingham was innocent - and the voting public concludes that Perry's move to replace the chairman and three other members of the commission might have been a blocking tactic? The Hutchison campaign is already saying, "It gives the appearance of a cover-up."
This sordid affair might prove very useful to Hutchison in her campaign to unseat the governor, except for the fact that she seems to have no fire in the belly to pursue the race. In a radio interview with WBAP's Mark Davis, she said she isn't sure when she will leave the Senate to pursue the governor's race full time. She isn't certain about what Congress will do with health care, and she wants to "stay and fight with every bone in my body against a government takeover."
Plan to attend the 10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty on October 24 in Austin at the Texas Capitol. We plan to deliver the petition that day. Members of Todd Willingham's family are expected to attend the march and rally and help us deliver the petition signatures.
Todd Willingham was executed for arson/murder on February 17, 2004. He professed his innocence from his arrest until he was strapped down on the execution gurney. Now, we know for certain that he was telling the truth. On August 25, 2009, Dr Craig Beyler, the investigator hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the Willingham case, released his report in which he found that "a finding of arson could not be sustained" by a scientific analysis (Read the report here). He concluded that the fire in the Willingham case was accidental and not arson. In fact, there was no arson, so there was no crime. Texas executed an innocent person. The proven execution of an innocent person should mean the end of the death penalty in the United States.
Rick Perry today vigorously defended his cover up of the execution of an innocent person in Texas by calling Todd Willingham a "monster". Eugenia Willingham, Todd's mother, responded to Perry's statement by telephone on tonight's CNN AC360, saying that Todd loved his kids and that Todd told her his trial was "a big joke" in part because his own defense lawyer thought he was guilty.
Kay Bailey Hutchison said today that Rick Perry's actions and cover up has given "liberals" a valid issue to criticize the death penalty.
Dr. Craig Beyler was quoted on CNN tonight saying that Rick Perry's new appointees to the Texas Forensic Science Commission should resign to restore integrity to the process. Beyler also said Perry is using his political clout to protect himself.
"As hard as Rick Perry's office and his campaign may try to divert from the issue, this is not about one man or one case. The issue is Rick Perry's heavy-handed politicization of a process and Commission established by the legislature to provide critical oversight. First, Rick Perry delayed the formation of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, then he tried to ensure it didn't have funding and when all else failed, he fired everyone he could. The only thing Rick Perry's actions have accomplished is giving liberals an argument to discredit the death penalty. Kay Bailey Hutchison is a steadfast supporter of the death penalty, voted to reinstate it when she served in the Texas House and believes we should never do anything to create a cloud of controversy over it with actions that look like a cover-up."
Chris Mathews also reported on the Willingham case tonight on Hardball. Watch the video here.
Beyler is quoted in the Dallas Morning News saying that Perry has a conflict of interest and should have not upended the investigation:
"his (Perry's) failure to recuse himself is both unethical and injurious to the cause of justice," Beyler wrote in a note intended for the Forensic Science Commission and forwarded to several reporters with his permission.
Call Perry's office at 512 463 1782 and demand that he release the memo he received from his staff on the day of Willingham's execution and all information that he is refusing to release regarding Willingham.
Plan to attend the 10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty on October 24 in Austin at the Texas Capitol. We plan to deliver the petition that day. Members of Todd Willingham's family are expected to attend the march and rally and help us deliver the petition signatures.
Todd Willingham was executed for arson/murder on February 17, 2004. He professed his innocence from his arrest until he was strapped down on the execution gurney. Now, we know for certain that he was telling the truth. On August 25, 2009, Dr Craig Beyler, the investigator hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the Willingham case, released his report in which he found that "a finding of arson could not be sustained" by a scientific analysis (Read the report here). He concluded that the fire in the Willingham case was accidental and not arson. In fact, there was no arson, so there was no crime. Texas executed an innocent person. The proven execution of an innocent person should mean the end of the death penalty in the United States.
You can also send Perry a letter in the postal mail to the mailing address:
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
You can also call him on the phone and leave him a message:
The Houston Chronicle reported last Friday that Rick Perry's office is refusing to release notes relating to the last-minute request for a stay of Cameron Todd Willingham's execution. Lise Olsen reports:
Just 88 minutes before the February 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, Gov. Rick Perry's office received by fax a crucial arson expert's opinion that later ignited a political firestorm over whether Texas, on Perry's watch, used botched forensic evidence to send a man to his death. ...
On Feb. 17, the day of the execution, Perry's office got the five-page faxed report at 4:52 p.m., according to documents the Houston Chronicle obtained in response to a public records request.
But it's unclear from the records whether he read it that day. Perry's office has declined to release any of his or his staff's comments or analysis of the reprieve request.
At the core, here is the issue: either Rick Perry didn't know, or didn't care, that the forensic evidence used to momentarily execute a man could be fatally flawed. Either way, he didn't care if--under his watch--the State of Texas put an innocent man to death. Let's examine either scenario in more depth.
Rick Perry Didn't Know: If he didn't read the report, he was derelict in his duty as governor. The Houston Chronicle article makes it clear that three days before the scheduled execution, Willingham's lawyer asked Perry for a delay, citing a new report questioning the validity of the evidence use to convict him. That report was received by the governor's office less than two hours before Willingham was scheduled to die. If he never read his report and his office didn't do its job, then this entire cover-up is aimed at keeping this latest failure a secret from the people of Texas.
Rick Perry Didn't Care: If he did read the report, if he did see that forensic experts found the evidence to be fatally flawed, he didn't care enough to hold off for further review. Perhaps, in Rick Perry's mind, the man had already been found guilty enough times that no new evidence could ever call such certainty into doubt. Perhaps this is more scary than Perry simply falling down on doing his job. After all, Perry can always just kill someone later if they're really guilty. But he can't undo it if it turns out they're not guilty.
Whether or not individuals support the death penalty, we can all agree that the State of Texas should not be in the business of putting innocent individuals to death for crimes they did not commit. In this instance, should Willingham be exonerated, he was executed for a crime no one committed--an accidental arson that had no perpetrator, only victims. Thanks to Rick Perry, though, the State of Texas may now be guilty of the most heinous of crimes.
