Summary: Competent Texas Fire Investigators
Since 2008, The Innocence Project of Texas, The Texas Forensic Science Commission and the Texas State Fire Marshal’s office have reviewed over 1,000 arson cases in which someone was held criminally responsible (1).
The findings, through 5/2019, 11 years:
1 case out of that 1000 has resulted in an exoneration based upon flawed forensics (2).
That is 0.1%. Keep that in mind.
Correction: They sent questionaires to 1000 imprisoned arsonists, requesting a reply, as to any innocent claims. Therefore, the 0.1% still stands.
Reason and the facts indicate that Texas had high standards, in 1991-1992 and forward, just as they did 2002 and forward.
"In the Willingham triple murder/arson case, a review of The Texas Forensic Science Commission report confirms that all fire forensic markers for arson, save one, may have been accurate, as determined by the original fire investigators (3)."
"None of the many conclusions for arson, with the exception of crazed glass, could be excluded from the assessments of the original Texas fire experts, the only investigators who examined the physical evidence." (3).
Even the crazed glass was accepted, at the time of their assessment.
You didn't know that? Credit media.
======
A Complete Compilation:
Cameron Todd Willingham: Media Meltdown & the Death Penalty
When Media & Anti-death Penalty Advocates Are the Same
and
A Repudiation of Journalism, by Journalists?
The Society of Professional Journalists & The Sigma Delta Chi Award:
======
"The later assessments, critical of the original investigation, had no access to any of the physical evidence from the fire, overlooked critical eyewitness testimony, as well as fact issues, and could not exclude arson (3)."
"Combining the forensic fire evidence with eyewitness testimony, inclusive of that by Todd Willingham, the case for arson is solid (3)."
We, now, know, that Willingham wasn't stopping to save his one year old twins, Karmon and Kameron. Why not save his two year old Amber? His intention was to murder her and them, not save anyone. That's the only credible explanation, confirmed by the statements of eyewitnesses, including Todd, as well as by trial witness Webb and Todd's parents.
After Willingham left the house, he had plenty of time and plenty of doors and windows to reenter, away from the fire, to save Amber. He had no intention of doing so.
How do we know? Because he had every opportunity to do so and didn't - just as he did prior to leaving the house.
=====
Stacy Kuykendall, Cameron Todd Willingham’s ex wife:
“Todd set our house on fire then stood outside and watched it burn. He knew our three daughters (Amber Louise, Karmon Diane and Kameron Marie) were inside this home taking their last breath. He watched them die.”
“Before Todd was executed, he confessed to his family that he never went into the twins room to try and save them, that he had lied about it. Actually, he stood outside of our home as the house engulfed in flames knowing his three daughters were inside.”
“(Reporters) Mills, Possley (of the Chicago Tribune) and Grann (of the New Yorker) have all come to my home uninvited to ask me questions about my ex-husband. I told them all that I no longer believe that Todd was innocent, that he did murder my daughters and I did not want to talk about that which had to deal with him.”
”Stacy Kuykendall’s statement about the 1991 fire”, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 10/25/09, http://www.star-telegram.com/texas/story/1709042-p3.html
NOTE: Yes, Stacy has provided some conflicting statements. Her final conclusion, after reviewing all the evidence, is that Todd murdered the children.
Then, she stated that he confessed to her that he murdered the children, during her visit with him:
"In the end (Todd) told me (on Jan. 31, 2003) why he took my daughters from me because I was divorcing him." "On February 2, 2004 I received a letter from (Todd) thanking me of allowing him to let him cleans his conscience in person. He said that it meant a lot to him and hoped that one day I could forgive him."
======
See SPJ's Code of Ethics, here:
A Repudiation of Journalism, by Journalists?
The Society of Professional Journalists & The Sigma Delta Chi Award:
=====
NOW, LET'S REVIEW THE FICTION OF DAVID GRANN (WITH ZWICK'S)
The (May 2019) movie "Trial by Fire", directed by Ed Zwick, is based upon Grann's horrendous article.
=======
Reviewed at the bottom of this article, see "The Lost City of Z", another "true story" by Grann, also made into a movie, both of which are creative fiction, to be kind.
======
Preface
I could fantasize that David Grann was an objective reporter who made the solid, unbiased case for an innocent executed.
Sadly, that ruse has already been used, around the globe, with editorial writers and journalists and other anti-death penalty activists, quoting extensively from Grann's article, with no fact checking, no vetting and absent critical thinking, as with the SPJ and Polk Award folks.
So, why not do something different?
I contend this: "David Grann, anti-death penalty activist/member of the defense team".
This is the nonsense that The New Yorker/Zwick/Polk/SPJ Award folks were impressed with.
Method: I list the page numbers from the article, followed by Grann's comments then, my REPLY.
Grann p 3 (Willingham) hollered, “Oh God— Amber, get out of the house! Get out of the house!’ ”He never sensed that Amber was in his room, he said. Perhaps she had already passed out by the time he stood up, or perhaps she came in after he left, through a second doorway, from the living room."
Sharp REPLY: Folks, think about this.
Todd stated that Amber was in the room with him, or any other of Todd's conflicting statements (below). Somehow, Grann overlooked that.
Yep, she came into the master bedroom with feet, burned in the fire, somehow, impossibly, not encountering Todd in the hallway/bedroom, then tucks herself into Todd's bed, facing downward.
Then we have this nonsense.
Grann says "Perhaps (Amber) had already passed out by the time (Willingham) stood up".
"Already". What, the millisecond it took Willingham to stand up, right after Amber, 2, screams woke him up? Grann, surely, you can't do much worse than that.
Let's buy Grann's nonsense.
If Amber passed out, then and there, Amber is with Willingham in his bedroom, where Amber was found. There is no fire in that room. Willingham just leaves her. Amber, Karmon and Kameron, the twins, age 1, die, as per Todd and Grann.
They tell you that.
Who would leave their 2 year old to their own devices to get out of a burning house, right after the two year old passed out? No one, who wanted to save them.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
So Todd leaves Amber, passed out, and she, later, gets up with burned feet, climbs into Todd's bed, tucks herself in, while facing downward.
Amber, and the twins, die. Todd, in one of his many conflicting statements said he did, exactly, that, he made no effort to save them and just left them to die.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
Or perhaps, Willingham asked Amber to wait for him in his bedroom, where she was found, alive, but unconscious, because of smoke inhalation, while daddy went to save the twins. Then daddy skipped out of the house, instead. Amber and the twins die and we all know Todd could have saved Amber, at least, based upon Willingham's own statements, as both Grann and Zwick know.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
Todd admitted he made no effort to save his children. He left them TO DIE.
In fact, Amber was found with burned feet, in Todd's bed, the master - Amber was face down in Todd's bed and tucked in. After Amber burned her feet in the fire, that Todd started, she came into the master, where Todd, kindly tucked Amber into the bed and then left her and the twins to die.
The fire never entered the master bedroom, for which there were four entrances/exits, always away from the fire, with all the time necessary to save, at least, Amber. Todd didn't. Why? He wanted to murder her, not save her.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
========
See diagram of house & fire locations, page 176 on the computer counter
REPORT OF THE TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION WILLINGHAM/WILLIS INVESTIGATION APRIL 15, 2011
http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/documents/FINAL.pdf which has become
======
According to witnesses, Todd made enough effort to save things from within the house, going in and out of the house, while the fire was burning, and to push his car away from the house, yet, somehow, just couldn't make an effort to save his children.
Think about that. And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
======
(2009) "The second affidavit is from a neighbor who this month gave a statement about what he saw on the morning of the December 1991 fire. Tony Ayala told Corsicana police Detective Seth Fuller on Oct. 6 (2009) that he saw Willingham packing his vehicle and moving it out of the carport as smoke poured out of the house."
Why did Ayala wait? He didn't. "he tried to tell police in 1991 what he saw, but he was rebuffed."
Anti-death penalty folks/media complain that he isn't credible, because he waited too long.
He had no need to come forward. Willingham was arrested and convicted. He, only, came forward, in 2009, because of the media coverage regarding allegations of innocence.
His statement is similar to others that were there and supports the evidence of arson/murder.
Isn't it strange that anti-death penalty folks don't say we shouldn't trust folks who don't come forward, immediately, when they know a defendant/death row inmate is innocent, when there is an absolute moral obligation to come forward immediately? Those are the folks to be challenged, obviously.
No such moral obligation exists for someone who knows an arrested, convicted party is guilty.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
======
Ex-relative: Executed inmate confessed to murders, October 16, 2009,
https://www.greeleytribune.com/news/local/ex-relative-executed-inmate-confessed-to-murders/
======
Firefighters rescued Amber, still alive. She died, later, in the hospital emergency room, from smoke inhalation.
I guess Grann thought those issues unimportant, as Grann (and Zwick/Polk/SPJ) as they went unmentioned. New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ for the defense.
Grann/Zwick just cherry picks, leaving out the large number of well known contradictory quotes from Willingham, as well as the large number of other eyewitness statements, all of which are important to any investigators, including forensic fire investigators, whose standards describe the importance of eyewitnesses.
One may wonder, how did The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ avoid all of that? On purpose, of course. Ask them.
========
Here are huge numbers of contradictory statements made by Todd, wherein it is undeniable that he is lying and whereby he also makes statements, leading to the obvious conclusion of arson. Why can't Todd keep his story straight? Because he has lied so much he can't remember all the lies. Obvious.
Do you wonder why Todd wondered about how officials might find injuries to the children and because of that folks might blame Todd for the fire? Wonder no more:
read para 16 a-aa, pages 4-11; and para 17 a-f, pages 12-13; and para 18
a-h; pages 14-15; and para 19-23, pages 15-21 from
All, obviously, viewed as unimportant by The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al but crucial to reality. They, all, had access to the witness statements, just like everyone.
Do they care? Likely, yes, which is why they avoided it.
===
Grann p 6 "Dozens of studies have shown that witnesses’ memories of events often change when they are supplied with new contextual information. Itiel Dror, a cognitive psychologist who has done extensive research on eyewitness and expert testimony in criminal investigations, told me, “The mind is not a passive machine. Once you believe in something—on you expect something—it changes the way you perceive information and the way your memory recalls it.”
Sharp REPLY: Grann presumes, without evidence, that some earlier statements, more sympathetic to Willingham, were more credible. Grann wouldn't speculate that folks reflected and said, later, hey, Willingham, in reality, acted suspicious. Or they always were suspicious. Grann, for the defense.
In fact, it is far worse than that, Neighbors tried to get Todd to go back in, to save his children, while the fire appeared quite small. He wouldn't.
Other facts, revealed, later, in Grann's article, found that the more suspicious the witnesses became of Willingham's behavior, the closer to the truth they were, as detailed.
As with Grann's speculation on page 6, which was opposite the reality that Grann later revealed on page 16. Grann for the defense.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
Maybe Grann could have looked up some studies on increased family violence during Christmastime and played up that angle. Obvious.
Or what about the money issues at Christmas, non working dad, working mom. Poor. Has that ever caused stress within a family? Obvious.
Have fathers "without motive" murdered their children under those circumstances? Or under much less stress? Obvious.
Or have father's with known, violent tendencies ever murdered their children? Obvious.
It's not uncommon for violent people to murder, with no motive. They're just mean. Obvious.
Could Grann so speculate? Of course not. Grann/Zwick/Polk, et al, for the defense.
It's far from speculation, as likely, many of us know:
"Christmas is the most feared time of the whole year. Domestic violence
rises significantly during the festive period. Not a year goes by when we don’t
see a seasonal spike in incidents reported to the police." (5)
"At times, it appears that fathers turn to murder when the pressures of
life abound." "aren’t able to cope with the increasing demands" "lost his job"
"failed to earn a living" "considerable financial strain" (6) or when they want revenge against their wives (6).
Sound like Willingham? Of course.
Sounds just like Todd. But Grann wouldn't even consider it.
The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al for the defense. How? Why?
===
Presented at Todd's trial, in the punishment phase
Todd's Character/criminal issues
Appellant was verbally and physically abusive toward his family.
One time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage.
A friend of appellant's testified that appellant once bragged about brutally killing a dog.
Fellow inmate (Webb) stated that Todd purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had recently been abused.
Record of Criminal activity
April 1986: Carrying a Concealed Weapon and Public Intoxication Punishment
May 1986: Entering a Building with Unlawful Intent and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor (supplying paint for sniffing to a twelve-year-old child)
May 1986: Second Degree Burglary
November 1986: Two counts of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor (supplying paint to a twelve-year-old child and an eleven-year-old child)
April 1987: Grand Larceny
November 1988: Driving Under the Influence of Liquor and/or Drugs (substance was paint)
February 1989: Shoplifting
thereafter:
December 1991: arson/murder, three counts
Avoided by The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al? How? Why?
=======
Grann p 9 "In recent years, though, questions have mounted over whether the system is fail-safe. Since 1976, more than a hundred and thirty people on death row have been exonerated. DNA testing, which was developed in the eighties, saved seventeen of them, but the technique can be used only in rare instances."
Sharp REPLY: I know of no one that thinks any government programs are failsafe. Does Grann? Of course not. He is just using it as sarcasm, so he can trample it.
Does The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al? Of course not.
But Grann did buy it, hook, line and sinker, that anti-death penalty claims are failsafe. Why? Because Grann only wants to show how fallible the death penalty is. It may be false, but, it's good anti-death penalty theater.
Polk/SPJ bought it, hook, line and sinker. Why? My interpretation? They wanted to. Yours?
The anti -death penalty, non-fact checked literature told Grann/Zwick what they wanted to hear, so, why fact check or vet it? Credibility? What for? The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et all, anti-death penalty activists. Why else?
Many reporters, blindly parrot these same anti-death penalty morsels of nonsense, below A-E, without fact checking nor vetting . . . often, the norm, as herein.
So travels Grann, as detailed:
(A) Grann says "Since 1976, more than a hundred and thirty people on death row have been exonerated."
It's total nonsense.
In 2005, New York Times justice reporter Adam Liptak (now US Supreme Court) found the death row innocence claims to be 71% false (7), that being 92 false claims of Grann's 130 claimed "exonerated", which equals 38 proven innocent, or 0.6%, all of whom have been released. The false claims of death row innocence range from 71-83% (8).
(B) On the DNA front, Grann says DNA "saved" 17 death row inmates.
Grann wants us to believe those 17 would have been executed, absent that DNA exclusion. Total nonsense, of course.
8-9 of those 17 had already been taken off death row, prior to the DNA exclusion.
Those were "saved" prior to DNA testing. Grann works the good anti-death penalty drama. But, accuracy? 40% of death row inmates are removed from death row, by appeals or commutation.
======
Exoneration by DNA? Not.
I have only looked at one of those actual death row DNA "exonerations", Curtis Edward McCarty.
Just one and this is what I found:
Guess what? All the anti-death penalty "exoneration" sites, leave this out:
The case for McCarty's guilt is substantial, as the courts confirm, as per
McCARTY v. GILCHRIST, United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Curtis Edward McCARTY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Joyce A. GILCHRIST, in her official capacity; William Citty, Chief of Police, City of Oklahoma City, in his official capacity; City of Oklahoma City, Defendants—Appellees. No. 09–6220. Decided: July 14, 2011
downloaded 4/14/2019
Note that all of the guilt assertions, from the above Court decisions, are left out of both the Innocent Project and The National Registery of Exonerations, see here
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3418
and here
https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/906/
last viewed 4/29/2019
One of the reporters, mentioned by Todd's ex-wife, Stacey Kuykendall, above, from her quotes, is Possley, now a researcher for The National Registery of Exonerations.
I am a researcher, as well.
What are the chances that I looked at the only DNA "exoneration" case with evidence of guilt? Zero? . . . in this context - the "innocent" and "exoneration" claims from death row are 71-83% false, as detailed (8).
My informed opinion is that the IP and the NRE, intentionally, leave out such information or they have very bad researchers or both. Ask them?
Ask NRE and IP how many of their exoneration cases were denied compensation based upon evidence of guilt and/or the absence of evidence for innocence?
Consider the huge omissions, here:
Myths and Facts about the Willingham Case, The Innocence Project, News, 11.09.09
https://www.innocenceproject.org/myths-and-facts-about-the-willingham-case/
Omissions which I exposed within this paper or others, as provided.
======
In addition, about 13% of all death row inmates have been executed. About 44% have been removed from death row for other reasons, meaning death row inmates are 338% more likely to be removed from death row by reasons other than execution.
Grann, do you need proof, evidence and fact checking/vetting to make claims?
Isn't that, allegedly, what your article was concerned with? Oh well. Grann, anti-death penalty activist.
Grann may have speculated that innocents are more protected with the death penalty than they are with lesser sentences. But, why would an anti-death penalty activist so speculate? He wouldn't, of course. But, it's true (9).
The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
===
Grann p 9 (C) In 2000, after thirteen people on death row in Illinois were exonerated, George Ryan, who was then governor of the state, suspended the death penalty.
Sharp REPLY: Why can't Grann fact check and tell us how many of those 13 "exonerated" are actually innocent? Maybe there is a reason why. The 13 were not "exonerated" (10).
Anti-death penalty folks/groups have, simply, redefined "exonerated" and "innocent" as if they had redefined lie as truth and then stuffed a bunch of cases into those fraudulent definitions (8). This is not in dispute, for anyone that fact checks and vets.
Grann/Zwick, anti-death penalty activists.
===
Grann p 9 (D) In 1993, Ruben Cantu was executed in Texas for fatally shooting a man during a robbery. Years later, a second victim, who survived the shooting, told the Houston Chronicle that he had been pressured by police to identify Cantu as the gunman, even though he believed Cantu to be innocent. Sam Millsap, the district attorney in the case, who had once supported capital punishment (“I’m no wild-eyed, pointy-headed liberal”), said that he was disturbed by the thought that he had made a mistake.
Sharp REPLY: Grann, Fact checking/vetting would be nice. Oh, well.
The only pressure was for Moreno to identify the man who murdered Moreno's best friend and almost murdered Moreno. The police had nothing on Moreno to pressure him (11). Grann for the defense.
(E) Instead of playing the bluff, using Grann's imaginative style of reporting, aka story-telling, where Grann wrote that Millsap "thought he had made a mistake.", why not be a little less nebulous and suggestive.
How about - One could safely call Millsap an anti-death penalty activist, who had radically changed his statements on Cantu. Explain that Millsap has gone from Cantu was innocent to, well, maybe he didn't get adequate due process, or various versions of that. Grann wasn't trying to get us to imagine that Millsap thought Cantu was actually innocent, was he? Millsap "thought he had made a mistake."
And Grann left all of that out because . . . he only had 17 pages for his article?
======
The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
=======
Why did Grann stick all of these anti-death penalty "innocence" deceptions (A-E) into his article?
It was to influence the reader into turning them toward an "innocent" Willingham. It was setting the stage.
But, it was fiction, just like the Zwick film will be, based upon Grann's article, just as the other Grann "true" story made into another fictional film, below.
And the invisible fact checkers at The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ?
NOTE: I sent a fact checking inquiry to New Yorker on these on 9/4/09, to fiction@newyorker.com, shouts@newyorker.com, newsbreaks@newyorker.com, themail@newyorker.com. Then on 9/14-09, I sent to the same group with Grann, added.
So far (up to 11/2023), no reply nor correction. Why? Guess. Ethics?
===
Grann p 15 Without having visited the fire scene, (fire expert Gerald) Hurst says, it was impossible to pinpoint the cause of the blaze. But, based upon the evidence, he had little doubt that it was an accidental fire—one caused most likely by the space heater or faulty electrical wiring.
Sharp REPLY: "IMPOSSIBLE." and "little doubt" go together for Hurst. Keep that in mind.
The gas had been turned off at the Willingham home, four days prior to the fire. This, of course, has no effect on Hurst claiming that it is possible that the gas space heater could have caused the fire.
Hurst provides for the impossible to be a source of the fire. That is what we are dealing with, here, with Hurst.
Did Hurst examine the electrical wiring? Of course not.
Keep in mind that Hurst has stated that he can never exclude arson. Never.
"Impossible" to pinpoint. But, "(Hurst) had little doubt it was an accidental fire". "impossible to pinpoint the cause". But, Hurst says it's "most likely" that "the space heater or faulty wiring" was the cause.
Is "most likely" or "little doubt" scientific, or is it a game of chance, where 20% doubt is little doubt or "most likely" means 51% likely? Dr. Hurst?
How does "IMPOSSIBLE" reconcile with "little doubt" or "most likely" the space heater or the electrical wiring reconcile, scientifically? They don't reconcile.
Hurst's scientific method? Clairvoyant? Soothsayer? Junk Science?
Dr. Hurst, would that be a 26% vote for space heater, 25% for the electrical wiring and 49% for arson? That would give the space heater and electrical wiring a 51% "most likely", over the "less likely" 49% for arson.
Or are we looking at 34% for heater, 34% for wiring and 32% for arson?
Dr. Hurst, which junk science method works best?
The gas was turned off 4 days prior to the fire. What does that do for Hurst's "most likely", if true? Dr. Hurst? wiring 51%, arson 49%. "IMPOSSIBLE?" "Scientific Guess?"
Let's go back to the criticism of the state "experts" at trial, that imagination, opinion based upon fantasy/bad science and faulty judgement were their calling cards. You know "more likely than not" "most likely". Not science.
The state arson experts agreed that the fire was not caused by either the space heater or the electrical wiring.
Has anyone contradicted their testimony on that topic, based upon the facts? Of course not. They cannot. It would be "Impossible."
But they're happy to act as soothsayers. The fire has told them a story - it was the wiring or the space heater.
We know the original fire investigators were 100% correct on the space heater and Hurst 100% wrong.
Furthermore, two of the state experts, Fogg and Hensley blast the conclusions of the forensics report by Beyler (12).
There are 3 forensic reviews, highly critical of the courtroom testimony, The reviews are Hurst, Innocent Project and Beyler. Briefly, they say, that the trial testimony was false, that arson could not have been detected, based upon the flawed knowledge of the trial's fire "experts" and that flashover may have caused the arson evidence, if any, to become indistinguishable from a non arson fire.
Nothing could be further from the truth, as detailed, throughout and at (13).
Fogg: "A lot of this stuff (in Beyler’s report) is misspoken or misinterpreted,” Fogg said. “We eliminated all accidental causes.” "Beyler acknowledges that one sample did have accelerant in it, but said it was unidentified, a claim Fogg disputes.""Beyler theorized it was a flashover, and said investigators didn’t see the difference between the intense heat of a flashover and an accelerant-driven fire.""Fogg laughed at the notion." " If it had been a flashover, it would have taken out the thin layer of sheetrock on the walls, he argued." “That house was box construction,” Fogg said. “The only sheetrock that came down was what was hit with water. The paper backing wasn’t even scorched.”
Hensley: "For Hensley, the most damning evidence came from Willingham, who told officers that 2-year-old Amber woke him up. Firefighters later found her in his bed, with burns on the soles of her feet." " Yet, Willingham didn’t take the girl with him when he fled, nor did he receive burns walking down that same hallway, Hensley pointed out." "Willingham “had no more (carbon monoxide) than somebody who had just smoked a cigarette,” Hensley said. "Hensley has since become a certified arson investigator. In hindsight, he insists they took the right steps with the evidence in the Willingham case." “We did everything we were supposed to do,” he said.
"Hensley also dismisses Beyler’s report, pointing out that Beyler didn’t talk to the investigators, and reading the testimony can’t replace first-person observations." “You can find expert witnesses everywhere, and if you pay them enough they’ll testify to anything,” Hensley said. “They’re to be bought.” “You can’t just look at a little part. Look at the whole picture, and that’s what the jury did,” Hensley said. “If a 2-year-old wakes you up and there’s smoke and fire everywhere, aren’t you going to at least get that one out? It couldn’t possibly have happened the way (Willingham) said.” "Willingham’s behavior afterwards did not help his case. Todd Morris was the first police officer on the scene and he found Willingham trying to push his car away from the house to save it from the fire, while his children were inside burning up, Hensley said."
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
======
Rebuttal to Craig Beyler:
The Corsicana Fire Dept Response to Dr. Craig Beyler's Report
Re: Willigham Matter, p 118-138 (as per computer counter) , 9/29/2009, from Report of the Texas Forensic Science Commission: Willingham/Willis Investigation, 4/15/2011,
Cameron Todd Willingham:
Have you read the Beyler report? (2) It could, hardly, be worse.
======
Grann/Zwick, could Fogg and Hensley have been important for your article/movie? For Polk/SPJ? Of course not, they don't help the case that Grann was presenting. Grann/Zwick for the defense.
Grann/Zwick, try reading this:
"No doubts: Those closest to case shed no tears for Willingham"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2017/08/cameron-todd-willingham-guilty.html
Hurst said it was IMPOSSIBLE to pinpoint the origin of the fire. For him, of course. He never saw the evidence.
Impossible means, of course, the fire could have been arson or could have been accidental, according to Hurst.
Grann/Zwick couldn't understand that such is what "IMPOSSIBLE" means. Grann/Zwick for the defense.
As Gerald Hurst states: “I never had a case where I could exclude arson,” “It’s not possible to do that.” ("Family’s Effort to Clear Name Frames Debate on Executions", John Schwartz, New York Times, October 14, 2010, \http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/15execution.html?_r=1)
Grann/Hurst left that out of the story.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
======
How full of BS is Hurst?
While Grann's article stinks up Hurst, quite a bit, we have this as well.
Hurst stated that the Texas Gov's mansion fire was, most likely, not an arson fire. Hurst, of course, was never at the scene and knew nothing. Hurst stated that since it appeared the fire started on the second floor than no arsonist would do that and that Fire Marshal Maldanodo may have jumped to the wrong conclusion that it was, likely, arson, even though Maldanodo and other arson experts had been at the scene. Hurst thought it more likely it was construction related, starting on the second floor."The ancient electrical system may have caught fire, Hurst said. Or workers might have carelessly left something unsecured." Governor's Mansion arson theory doesn't hold water, Bud Kennedy, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 6/08/2008
Irresponsible, blind speculation, with zero evidence, as per Hurst.
You ready?
There is a videotape of the arsonist throwing the molotov cocktail onto the first floor porch of the Gov's mansion.
A pattern?
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
Commutation/delay request
Hurst was the fire expert who put together the evaluation of the arson evidence, for Willingham's attorney, hoping for a commutation or delay of execution, after review by the Texas Pardons and Parole Board.
After conviction, the burden of proof switches to the convicted party.
Hurst did not and could not rule out arson and many of his observations, on specific signs for arson, Hurst could not exclude it.
As Hurst well knew, eyewitness observation and statements can be and, often, are crucial to fire investigations and are a well-known requirements in forensic investigation, when applicable.
Hurst, intentionally, left out all of that crucial information, making it obvious that neither Hurst nor Todd's attorney could overcome that very important evidence, which is why it was not presented, within Hurst's forensic evaluation.
Such stood out, clearly, to the TBPP, Gov. Perry and many others.
That combination guaranteed a unanimous denial, which is what occurred.
The media ignored those important details.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
See Hurst's report, pg 318-322 (computer counter) from final report.
======
Grann p 15 It explained why there had never been a motive for the crime.
Sharp REPLY: Nonsense. First, vile people don't need a motive. It is who they are. Research fathers who murder their children. Lots of material. Research?
But, there was motive:
One alleged motive was that Stacy had told Todd, the night before, just as she had, weeks, before, that she was divorcing Todd and that he murdered the children to hurt Stacy or so that she would be so distraught that she wouldn't be able to leave him.
Another was presented by Todd, who mentioned bruising on Amber's neck, a sign of abuse, which might have been covered up by a fire. And that was Todd's speculation.
Have father's with known, violent tendencies ever murdered their children? It's not uncommon for violent people to murder, with no motive. They're just mean. Grann? Motive? Grann, for the defense.
Refer to my page 6 REPLY, above. Obvious.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
===
Grann p 15 (Gerald) Hurst concluded that there was no evidence of arson, and that a man who had already lost his three children and spent twelve years in jail was about to be executed based upon “junk science.”
Sharp REPLY: Hurst just finished his own long acceptance of junk science, with Hurst, Grann and Zwick, somehow, completely, unaware? Of course not.
Arson could not and was not excluded. And we know that Hurst stated that he could never exclude arson.
Of course, there was evidence of arson.
An accelerate was found in the front hall, under the door jam, with the hall fire connected to the fire in the children's room, the only two areas of the house where there was a fire.
In addition, the large burn pattern on the floor in the children's room very much appears to be an accelerate fire, as with the hallway, but an accelerate could not be found, but is a solid explanation for the burn patterns.
Scientific identification of accelerates was much more difficult at the time of the fire, than it is today, as detailed. Research?
Todd made sure that everyone knew that he had poured his cologne throughout the burn areas, as a way to explain any accelerate found. His excuse was that the children liked his cologne so that he was spreading it where they died.
Yep. Really.
Who would, allegedly, believe that nonsense? Anti-death penalty folks, who will do anything to make a guilty, executed murderer of three children innocent.
In addition, the eyewitness evidence, inclusive of Willingham's, strongly, supports arson.
Remember "Without having visited the fire scene, Hurst says, it was IMPOSSIBLE to pinpoint the cause of the blaze." As Hurst admitted, he hasn't, ever, been able to exclude arson.
The trial testimony of the arson "experts' was not junk science. It met the standards of the day (13) and, they assert, and some future standards, as well, as they assert (14). Today, with all of this additional knowledge, they still support arson, with all the known evidence.
A 2014 inquiry of 1000 Texas arson cases, of convicted arsonists, still in prison, may have found one actual innocent with poorly done fire forensics - 0.1% (1,2).
Texas did know and does know what they are doing.
Did anyone notice that the state experts agreed in their testimony that there were alternate scenarios for the fire and alternate possibilities for the arsonist, but that they both believed Willingham to be the arsonist?
The jury heard the state arson "experts" state that there were alternate scenarios for the fire, that it may not have been arson, and that anyone could have set the fire.
Yet, those arson "experts" and the jury, with the knowledge of all of the alternate possibilities, still found for Willingham's guilt.
Now, speculate that there was a reason for that. No need for speculation, And those reasons were covered at trial and Grann/Zwick "missed" them. How?
Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al for the defense.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
NOTE: I had not read the trial transcript, at the date of original publication but, soon thereafter, did.
======
Allegation: Prosecutorial Misconduct
District Attorney John Jackson cleared in "Trial By Fire" case (2017)
Kerri Anderson Donica, Criminal Defense Attorney, who testified: “I’ve never known a man with more integrity than John Jackson. I said in my testimony if they needed to take his law license, they could take mine too. I believe in him that much, and obviously the jury agreed.”
Robert Hinton of the Innocence Project said himself that Webb’s testimony was a “sociopathic story,” and that Jackson is a man of “high character.”
======
Grann p 16 Earlier, (Willingham) had confessed to his parents that there was one thing about the day of the fire he had lied about. He said that he had never actually crawled into the children’s room. “I just didn't want people to think I was a coward,” he said.
Hurst told (Grann), “People who have never been in a fire don't understand why those who survive often can't rescue the victims. They have no concept of what a fire is like.”
Sharp REPLY: There was no fire where Amber was, ever. Hurst and Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al for the defense.
Neither Hurst nor Grann has evidence that Willingham did not set the fire and murder his children. Period.
Let's review:
Willingham's confession is the closest Willingham could get to admitting he murdered his children. He didn't try to save them. He made up why he had burns.
Amber, Willingham's two year old, only had burned feet. She was found in a different room than the twins. She was in the master bedroom with Willingham when she "woke" him because of the fire, as told by . . . Todd Willingham.
Willingham had the opportunity to grab Amber and take her out of the house, with him.
If we use Grann's speculation, maybe Amber passed out in Willingham's bedroom, with her dad, and he just left her there.
Remember, the only reason Willingham gave, that he left Amber, was that he told Amber to get out, as Willingham tried to save the twins - he was crawling on his hands and knees to get the twins.
But, we know Willingham lied. He told us he never did that.
He simply abandoned Amber in the fire, along with the twins. Why? Because he had no intention of saving them. His intent was to murder them. Obvious.
Amber was found, un-burned, except for her feet, in the master bedroom, alive, face down, with the covers tucked around her shoulders. She later died of smoke inhalation. The fire never entered the master bedroom or the back of the house.
We will never know how much time Willingham had to save all of his children. But we do know, he never tried and, easily, could have saved Amber, based upon his own statements.
Why didn't Willingham just grab Amber, run down the hallway and exit the house? Or go out the four exits, away from the fire, with Amber? She was alive when he left her. Maybe the twins were alive, too.
We, now, know, that Willingham wasn't stopping to save the twins. Why not save Amber? His intention was to murder her and them, not save anyone. That's the only credible explanation, confirmed by the statements of eyewitnesses, including Todd.
After Willingham left the house, he had plenty of time and plenty of doors and windows to got into where there was no fire, to, at least, save Amber. He had no intention of doing so. How do we know?
Because he had every opportunity to do so and didn't.
Willingham's intention was to fabricate a heroic father, with burns, screaming and yelling, when an audience was there. "I have to save my children."
Of course, we know, from multiple witnesses, who tried to get Todd to save his children that he just sat there, watching them burn.
He, later admits, he was never going into that house, not even at the beginning of the fire, not even when most of the house had no flames - which was the entire time of the fire.
No wonder he had no signs of smoke inhalation.
He is yelling and screaming, handcuffed to the fire truck, the desperate father, straining to get into the flames to save his babies. It was all a conscious, deliberate deception.
He says he had no such intentions of ever saving his children because he was a coward.
No, he was a murderer.
As his children are burning up, Willingham has the foresight, calmness and grotesque callousness to create an entire drama, a complete fraud and Willingham admitted it.
How about this? Willingham had no intention of rescuing his children because he was a murderer, not a coward.
Why couldn't Grann make such a speculation? It doesn't help the defense or the anti- death penalty position. Basic.
Maybe my informed appraisal is just based upon "I have little doubt" or "most likely", you know, like Gerald Hurst's.
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
(Note: I have emailed Hurst, twice, for clarification on his comments. So far, no reply. NOTE, Hurst is dead now and never replied. Why? Speculate. The same reason the New Yorker and Grann did not respond, just like the Polk Award folks. and SPJ?)
===
Grann p 17 "Just before Willingham received the lethal injection, he was asked if he had any last words. He said, “The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for twelve years for something I did not do. From God’s dust I came and to dust I will return, so the Earth shall become my throne.”
Sharp REPLY: How profound. Do you think Grann left the following out on purpose?
Before Willingham received the lethal injection, he addressed Stacy Kuykendall, his ex-wife and mother of the three children he murdered, who was watching about 8 feet away through a window.
What did Grann, intentionally, leave out?
Willingham said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch; I hope you fucking rot in hell, bitch. You bitch; I hope you fucking rot, cunt. That is it."
According to the AP, Todd attempted to maneuver his hand, strapped at the wrist, into an obscene gesture.
Leaves you with a slightly different impression. Doesn't it?
Or what Grann didn't want you to know. Voila! Leave it out! Solid reporting! An award winner!
Grann/Zwick, for the defense. Maybe the whole article was written that way. Maybe? Please.
But worldwide media and anti-death penalty activists (often the same) bought into it, with no fact checking and no vetting. Why? Only to dupe you.
Is that possible? Likely? Sure? Guaranteed.
Found deserving of Polk and Sigma Delta Chi Awards.
How does that work?
And The New Yorker/Grann/Zwick/Polk/SPJ, et al missed that? How? Why?
In Closing
The complete repudiation of journalism, by journalists.
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
1) DEATH BY FIRE Texas Arson Review Yields A Handful of Questionable Cases, GRETCHEN GAVETT , PBS Frontline, AUGUST 10, 2012 / by
2) Texas Fire Marshal Speaks about Arson Case Review, By Innocence Project Staff, 02.08.17
5) “It’s the hardest time of year: why domestic violence spikes over Christmas ", MAYA OPPENHEIM, Austin American-Statesman, 22 DECEMBER 2015,
http://forensicoutreach.com/library/deadly-dads-some-of-the-shocking-reasons-fathers-kill-their-own-children/
7) Liptak: "To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row," (NY Times, 1/23/05), At the time of the article, there were 119 listed on the Innocence List (fn 13) 35 innocent, as per average by Liptak, means a 71% error rate with the 119. From 'The Death of Innocents': A Reasonable Doubt, by Adam Liptak, NY Times, JAN. 23, 2005
8) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
9) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
and
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/pdf/ReedCantuRpt.pdf
12) Rebuttal to Craig Beyler
from The Corsicana Fire Dept Response to Dr. Craig Beyler's Report Re: Willigham Matter, p 118-138 (as per computer counter) , 9/29/2009,
from
Report of the Texas Forensic Science Commission:
Willingham/Willis Investigation, 4/15/2011,
http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/documents/FINAL.pdf
13) State Fire Marshall's Office (SFMO) Response to Texas Forensic Science Commission Inquiry , page 215-216 (as per computer counter)
Texas Department of Insurance, State Fire Marshall's Office, Paul Maldonado, State Fire Marshall, , August 20, 2010, pages 212-213,
Texas Fire Foresics Standards (1991) Used in Willingham Case, as compared to the 1992 and 1995 NFPA Standards, page 215-216 (as per computer counter)
Attachment A, SFMO Investigation Report and NFPA 921
(All NFPA references are to 1995 edition because it is even more comprehensive than the original 1992 version. However, 1992 citation is noted in brackest [ }, if available.)
from
Report of the Texas Forensic Science Commission:
Willingham/Willis Investigation, 4/15/2011,
and
Rebuttal to Craig Beyler:
The Corsicana Fire Dept Response to Dr. Craig Beyler's Report
Re: Willigham Matter, p 118-138 (as per computer counter) , 9/29/2009, from Report of the Texas Forensic Science Commission: Willingham/Willis Investigation, 4/15/2011,
Cameron Todd Willingham:
Have you read the Beyler report? (2) It could, hardly, be worse.
===
"The Lost City of Z", another fictional "true story", also by David Grann, the same author who wrote "Trial by Fire".
One of the world's true great explorers, John Hemming, reviews David Grann's "The Lost City of Z". See the full review, here (2).
"The new film "The Lost City of Z" is being advertised as based on the true story of one of Britain’s greatest explorers.", a "true story" authored by David Grann.
"Unfortunately, Grann hyped ("The Lost City of Z") out of all proportion and wrongly depicted Fawcett as a great explorer."
"(Grann) let his imagination run riot . . . "Everyone who knows tropical forests, including me, knows that almost every word of (this section by Grann) is nonsense."
"Calling (Fawcett) one of our greatest explorers . . . is an insult to the huge roster of true explorers. Had the advertisement been about a soap powder, it would fall foul of the Trade Descriptions Act."
"These and a great many other passages (by Grann) are artistic licence and hype of an absurd order. Hollywood believed everything Grann wrote, and then hyped it up more."
"Fawcett admitted that he was ‘a greenhorn in the jungle’ and knew nothing about nature." "But Grann wrote that he moved ‘inch by inch through the jungle, tracing rivers and mountains, cataloguing exotic species… [until] he had explored as much of the region as anyone’.
"Not a word of this (section) was true, either."
"Equally absurd was (Grann's) rubbish about cannibalistic tribes, blow guns with poisoned darts, or Kuikuro menacing him with ‘gleaming spears flickering’ from the undergrowth."
"In fact, (Fawcett) was a racist incompetent who achieved very little."
A "true story"? Sound familiar?
===========
NOTE: The final chapter in this case is, nowhere, close to being concluded.
(1) "Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?", by David Grann, A Reporter at Large, The New Yorker, September 7, 2009
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
2) "The Lost City of Z is a very long way from a true story — and I should know",
John Hemming, The Spectator, 1 April 2017, https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/the-lost-city-of-z-is-a-very-long-way-from-a-true-story-and-i-should-know/
======
RELATED INFORMATION
The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html
UPDATE: Jury rules in Jackson's favor in civil judicial-misconduct trial
By Michael Kormos and Deanna Kirk, Corsicana Daily Sun May 12, 2017
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
======
======
Additional research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
7 pro-death penalty experts, herein
======
Partial CV
