Evan Stabolitis
Professor Max Seymour
Political Science
6th April, 2014
Case Cameron Willingham Willingham was immediately prosecuted for arson and the murder of his three little girls to cover up the supposed “abusing” of them. Stacy Kuykendall said there was no way he abused the children and that they were spoiled rotten. Think about it, how could a man abuse two twin one year old little girls and a two year old little girl. According to his wife he was also the best the father she had ever seen and the most loving man she’d ever met. When these things are put together, there is no way he could have done it, there is no reason why. Some of the evidence gathered against Willingham was charcoal starter fluid which was under the grill under the front porch which was melted, but some starter fluid was found inside the door next to the grill. This evidence shouldn’t have held any weight because of the fire hose pressure probably blowing some of the fluid into the house while trying to put the fire out. There was three starting points in the house where an accelerant was supposedly put to start the fire because of the marks of a “fast and hot” start of the fire. Later in the case a fellow inmate of Willingham testified against him saying that Willingham had indeed told him he did start the fire. The inmate that gave this information should have not have been of any importance because him and Willingham had gotten into an argument days before. The inmates background was not very trustworthy due to his drug addictions and crimes. Vasquez was the man that did the research and arson check on the house and found twenty pieces that told him Willingham was indeed the starter of the fire. Through out the case on Willingham’s side came Hurst which found faultiness in every aspect of the evidence that Vasquez had found. If you ask me, that would have been enough to get him of the hook if I was in charge of things, but they still had the drug head inmate swearing that he was told Willingham that he done it and set the fire to kill his children. Willingham was founded guilty although of his steady and accurate every single plea of innocence he sent to the judge and jury. On February 17, 2004 he was executed for the murder of his three little girls. There is many things that have been found since them to definitely prove him innocent. ““Nine nationally renowned, independent experts have reviewed the case in the last five years and found that the forensic analysis was wrong. “Craig Beyler, hired by the Forensic Science Commission, said of one of the analysts: “None of these determinations have any basis in modern fire science,” and of the second analyst’s findings: “There is no basis for this notion in modern fire science.” He found that the investigators did not comport with the “standard of care” for fire investigation at the time, and that “a finding of arson could not be sustained.” In a report filed with the Forensic Science Commission in 2006, five leading experts said “each and every one of the indicators relied on [to determine that the fire was arson] have since been scientifically proven to be invalid.” Gerald Hurst, whose report was sent to the governor before Willingham’s execution, has said, “There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire…It was just a fire.”” (First Cited Page) What juries need to understand that there has to be reason beyond doubt to make the call if someone is guilty. This especially should be considered when life or death of a possibly innocent person is in your hands. For instance, if someone was being tried for the murder and rape of three five year old girls with DNA matches and weapon matches, then yes, that is beyond doubt that that person committed the crime and they indeed do need the death penalty. Finding people guilty that are innocent and are on death row will ever end because of the outstanding lawyers this country has. This is not a perfect world so there will always be mistakes, jurors are people and people make mistakes. Reason beyond doubt is by far the most important rule that every juror and human being needs to think about before making any accusations that could affect someone’s life like this case has done to Willingham, his family and friends.

Cameron Willingham had his own little family going with three little girls all under the age of two, and a beautiful wife Stacy Kuykendall. On December 23, 1991 a fire started inside their house while Cameron Willingham’s wife was gone and it was just him and the three little girls. Cameron Willingham escaped the house with minor burns, but his daughters did not escape. This is where the case kicks off, why would a father of three little girls not try to save the lives of his children and risk his? If Willingham was asleep, it could have been too late to get to them and had to save his own life. Although the case was never closed and found Willingham guilty, the world and other forensic scientists agree that the forensic scientist that did the arson test was harsh and incorrect. They say the good die young and we lost one at thirty six.

Works Cited

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Myths_and_Facts_about_the_Willingham_Case.php
“The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham”
The NewYorker Trial by Fire “Did Texas execute innocent man?” By David Grann September 7, 2009