US Elections

Cameron Todd Willingham: Innocent or Guilty?

By Erin Riley in Sydney

15 November 2009

There was a fascinating article in the New Yorker a few months ago about Cameron Todd Willingham, a man from Texas convicted of deliberately lighting the fire that killed his three daughters. The article outlines the lengthy process by which several people were convinced of his innocence, then proceeded to fight for him. 

Willingham was certainly a troubled man. He admitted to beating his partner, but maintained he neither killed, nor did he ever harm, his children. With mere hours before Willingham's execution, an arson expert faxed his testimony to the Governor's Office, concluding that the evidence that convicted Willingham was misrepresented by an arson investigator who relied too heavily on old myths about fires, and too little on science. It was too late. Gov Rick Perry did not grant a pardon, and Willingham was executed on February 17th, 2004. He maintained his innocence to the end, refusing even to cooperate as they led him to his death.

Now, five years later, attention has turned to the case. This is, in part because of the attention of the media, but also largely because Perry is running for re-election in 2010, and facing off in a tough battle with now-senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. The case has garnered attention already during the campaign, with Perry's actions drawing criticism from his opponent.

Across the blogosphere, people are watching. This could be the first time, since the death penalty was re-introduced in the United States, that a state has admitted error in executing one of its citizens. Writers are divided over Willingham's guilt, over the quality of his trial, and over Gov. Perry's actions in the case.

Gov. Perry's decisions regarding Willingham could prove harmful to his reelection chances. Just 48 hours before the Texas Forensic Science Board was due to review the Willingham case in October this year, the Governor removed three members of the board and replaced them with hard line conservatives. The Willingham hearings were immediately postponed and may now not take place until 2011, long after Perry's reelection battle is over. 

One of the really interesting elements of this case is the way Hutchinson has framed her response. In accusing Perry of a cover-up, Hutchinson took the opportunity to attack him from the right. She has claimed that Perry's actions were irresponsible and could provide fodder for the anti-death penalty activists. The statement her office released stated:

"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." (Source: Wonkette)

Hutchinson used the case to display her own pro-death-penalty bona fides. Texas conservatives are apparently so strongly in favour of the death penalty that a case of possible innocence is presented by Hutchinson not as a tragic miscarriage of justice, but a potential attack on the death penalty. It's a remarkably example of the fierce belief many hold in the necessity of the death penalty

Many questions remain regarding the Willingham case: Does the US Justice system work when the accused has arguably inadequate representation? Did Perry abuse his power? If Willingham was innocent, what would that mean for the death penalty?

The most fundamental question though, and one that deserves to be revisited in an official, rather than journalistic, capacity, is did Cameron Todd Willingham murder his children, or did the state of Texas execute an innocent man?

Tags: Cameron Todd Willingham, Death Penalty, Rick Perry, Texas

Print This Post