Death penalty opponents try to fool the people of the world that Cameron Todd Willingham is innocent. He isn't!
Posted: October 23rd, 2009 11:52 PM ET
Program Note: Watch Randi Kaye's full report – including her interview with David Martin tonight on AC360° at 10 p.m. ET.
Randi Kaye| BIOAC360° Correspondent
I came to Texas this week to look deeper into a story I’ve been covering for a few years now for AC360°.
It’s the story of Cameron Todd Willingham, a father of three who was executed in February 2004 for setting a fire that killed his three daughters. But what if he didn’t set it? What if he just got a lame defense? Is it possible?
We wanted to know why he was convicted of “arson homicide” even though since the trial nine leading arson experts have said the fire showed no evidence of arson. So why was he executed?
We went straight to one of Willingham’s defense attorneys, David Martin, for some answers. We met at his Waco office, hours away from where the fire took place in the tiny town of Corsicana. Martin’s office was true Texas. It felt more like a ranch than a law office. We sat down in a couple of over-sized chairs (everything is bigger in Texas, you know) and talked about the case.
I asked Martin how it was possible that the prosecution put two experts on the stand who said the fire was arson, and yet Martin didn’t put anyone on the stand to refute their arguments. Why no expert to say the fire wasn’t arson in Willingham’s defense?
Martin told me, “We couldn’t find one that said it wasn’t arson.”
As a court-appointed attorney, Martin said money was hard to come by and he only had enough funds to hire one expert. And it turned out that the expert ended up agreeing with the prosecution’s experts about the fire being arson so he never put him on the stand.
“You’re just going to abracadabra an arson investigator up to put on the stand? You have to get money,” Martin said.
So who did Martin end up putting on stand in Willingham’s defense? A felon who was in prison with Willingham and the family’s babysitter.
Martin told me that he thought Willingham was guilty from day one and he believed that the patterns on the floor of the house showed that an accelerant had been used. If he thought he was guilty, could he have given him a good defense?
He said he tried everything he could to defend Willingham. He explained it this way, “you don’t have to believe somebody to defend them. You think Bailey and Cochran believed Simpson? No!”
Martin seemed to be enjoying our back-and-forth so I thought I’d press him on one last issue.
A juror told me just last week that she was having doubts about whether or not Todd Willingham really set the fire and was losing sleep over it all these years later. Willingham was convicted in 1992 and spent 12 years on death row before he was executed in 2004.
Martin’s response to this? “She doesn’t need to have no doubts in my mind. He really was guilty and it doesn’t matter how many people talk about it. The evidence is irrefutable.”
But what about the fact that this juror also told me her family was friendly with one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, Deputy Fire Marshall Doug Fogg. She said she told both the prosecution and the defense about this connection but was still chosen to be on the jury.
I asked Martin if that would be grounds for a mistrial. Without missing a beat, he told me absolutely not. He said it wasn’t a conflict of interest because “In a small town like Corsicana, lots of people knew Doug Fogg,” and “look at the evidence that was presented at trial. Would any reasonable mind conclude after the presentation of the evidence that he was not guilty?”
Before our interview was finished, Martin went on to call Todd Willingham a “monster” and a “sociopath”. He said Willingham was his own worst enemy and that he had so many conflicting accounts of the fire that the jury didn’t believe him.
Sound like a defense attorney to you? Or does David Martin sound more like a prosecutor? Martin said it’s not his job to “swallow” whatever story his client tells him, but he insisted he did his best to keep Todd Willingham off death row.
Anderson Cooper: “David, you always believed that your client was guilty. Now after a half dozen experts have come forward to say there’s no way the fire was arson, you still say he was guilty. Why?”
David Martin: “Uh, Anderson, excuse my informal attire, we’ve been out checking cows… uh… tell me your question again?”
Anderson: “About a half dozen fire experts around the country have looked at this case now, and say the evidence that was used… simply is not accurate…”
Martin: “Ohhhh, no, that’s not what I glean from these reports here…”
CORSICANA — David Martin is sickened by the suggestion that Texas executed an innocent man when Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death for setting a fire that killed his three children.
The veteran defense attorney represented Willingham at trial. He looked at all the evidence. And he has no doubt that his client deserved to die.
"I never think about him, but I do think about those year-old babies crawling around in an inferno with their flesh melting off their bodies," Martin said. "I think that he was guilty, that he deserved death and that he got death."
The 2004 execution, however, didn't end questions about the case. Fire investigator experts hired first by The Innocence Project and later by the Texas Forensic Science Commission concluded the original finding of arson was seriously flawed.
Without that finding, prosecutors have admitted it would have been hard to win a death sentence against Willingham.
But the reports have done nothing to change the minds of Martin and four jurors reached by The Associated Press in recent weeks, who all remain convinced Willingham set the blaze 18 years ago that killed 2-year-old Amber and 1-year-old twins Karmon and Kameron. They never heard from Willingham, who declined to take the stand in his own defense.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, called 17 witnesses, including the only experts to testify — both fire investigators who told jurors arson was to blame.
"All you can go on when you are on a jury is what is put before you," said one juror, Dorenda Dechaume, 39. "I stand by my vote — guilty."
At trial, the expert testimony was definitive. The county's assistant fire chief, Doug Fogg, testified that he found pour patterns and puddling on the floor, signs that someone had poured a liquid accelerant throughout the Willingham's home. Manuel Vasquez, the state fire marshal whose credentials as a 30-year veteran firefighter and investigator were established on the stand, was unequivocal in his condemnation of Willingham, saying the defendant "told me a story of pure fabrication."
"He just talked and he talked, and all he did was lie," Vasquez said.
The defense didn't present a fire expert of its own — for good reason, Martin said.
Yet in a report released in August, fire expert Craig Beyler, chairman of the London-based International Association for Fire Safety Science, wrote the analysis conducted by Vasquez was "nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation."
Two days before the forensic science commission was to consider the report, Gov. Rick Perry fired three members. The move has delayed the commission's investigation indefinitely and drawn accusations that Perry is trying to cover up a mistaken execution on his watch.
Jurors said there were other odd details that sealed Willingham's fate. Ronald Franks, a Corsicana Fire Department paramedic, testified he returned to the home a few days after the fire. He found Willingham, who complained that his dart set was either burned or stolen from the wreckage.
Then, Franks testified, Willingham told him investigators would likely find cologne in the floor samples they were testing. He told Franks "he had poured cologne on the floor because the children had liked the smell of that cologne." He said he had poured it from the bathroom through the hallway to where the children were found, Franks said.
Jurors also heard from Willingham's neighbors. They testified that as the house south of Dallas burned to the ground, he was crouched down outside, screaming. But they also said he moved his car away from the house while his children were trapped inside.
That detail chilled jurors, who inferred Willingham showed more concern for his car than his kids.
"There was evidence of a fire that was deliberate," said juror Henry Ponder, now 81. "Not getting the children out of the house. Getting the car out of the way. It was all there."
Martin's case was brief, with just two witnesses. The first was the family baby sitter, who testified there was an oil lamp in the hallway, suggesting it might have spilled and spread flammable liquid. The second was a jail inmate, who was going to dispute the testimony of a jailhouse snitch who claimed Willingham had confessed. But the judge forbid most of his testimony as hearsay.
Willingham wasn't interested in explaining his behavior at trial. Outside the jury's presence, he took the stand to show for the record he had been advised of his right to testify.
"It's not that I don't wish to (testify), but I don't feel the need to," he said.
The jury returned its guilty verdict in 77 minutes.
"A lot of them wanted to vote right away," Dechaume said. "Me and two other people wanted to go over the facts of the case. It was unfair to go straight in there and decide. We went through everything we could have. All I can go by is what I had seen then."
"God forbid that somebody was executed who was innocent. Nobody wants that to happen," Martin said. "But for somebody so obviously guilty like Willingham — it's a travesty to make it seem like it was something other than what it was."
David Martin: “Uh, Anderson, excuse my informal attire, we’ve been out checking cows… uh… tell me your question again?”
Anderson: “About a half dozen fire experts around the country have looked at this case now, and say the evidence that was used… simply is not accurate…”
Martin: “Ohhhh, no, that’s not what I glean from these reports here…”
Corsicana
Daily Sun, Corsicana, Texas
December
2, 2009
(12-02-09)
Jurors defend verdict that led to Texas execution
JEFF
CARLTON
Associated
Press Writer
CORSICANA — David Martin is sickened by the suggestion that Texas executed an innocent man when Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death for setting a fire that killed his three children.
The veteran defense attorney represented Willingham at trial. He looked at all the evidence. And he has no doubt that his client deserved to die.
"I never think about him, but I do think about those year-old babies crawling around in an inferno with their flesh melting off their bodies," Martin said. "I think that he was guilty, that he deserved death and that he got death."
The 2004 execution, however, didn't end questions about the case. Fire investigator experts hired first by The Innocence Project and later by the Texas Forensic Science Commission concluded the original finding of arson was seriously flawed.
Without that finding, prosecutors have admitted it would have been hard to win a death sentence against Willingham.
But the reports have done nothing to change the minds of Martin and four jurors reached by The Associated Press in recent weeks, who all remain convinced Willingham set the blaze 18 years ago that killed 2-year-old Amber and 1-year-old twins Karmon and Kameron. They never heard from Willingham, who declined to take the stand in his own defense.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, called 17 witnesses, including the only experts to testify — both fire investigators who told jurors arson was to blame.
"All you can go on when you are on a jury is what is put before you," said one juror, Dorenda Dechaume, 39. "I stand by my vote — guilty."
At trial, the expert testimony was definitive. The county's assistant fire chief, Doug Fogg, testified that he found pour patterns and puddling on the floor, signs that someone had poured a liquid accelerant throughout the Willingham's home. Manuel Vasquez, the state fire marshal whose credentials as a 30-year veteran firefighter and investigator were established on the stand, was unequivocal in his condemnation of Willingham, saying the defendant "told me a story of pure fabrication."
"He just talked and he talked, and all he did was lie," Vasquez said.
The defense didn't present a fire expert of its own — for good reason, Martin said.
"We hired one ... and
he said: 'Yep. It's arson,'" Martin said. "It was really very, very
clear what happened in the house. Everybody who saw it, of course, reached the
same conclusion."
Yet in a report released in August, fire expert Craig Beyler, chairman of the London-based International Association for Fire Safety Science, wrote the analysis conducted by Vasquez was "nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation."
Two days before the forensic science commission was to consider the report, Gov. Rick Perry fired three members. The move has delayed the commission's investigation indefinitely and drawn accusations that Perry is trying to cover up a mistaken execution on his watch.
Jurors said there were other odd details that sealed Willingham's fate. Ronald Franks, a Corsicana Fire Department paramedic, testified he returned to the home a few days after the fire. He found Willingham, who complained that his dart set was either burned or stolen from the wreckage.
Then, Franks testified, Willingham told him investigators would likely find cologne in the floor samples they were testing. He told Franks "he had poured cologne on the floor because the children had liked the smell of that cologne." He said he had poured it from the bathroom through the hallway to where the children were found, Franks said.
Jurors also heard from Willingham's neighbors. They testified that as the house south of Dallas burned to the ground, he was crouched down outside, screaming. But they also said he moved his car away from the house while his children were trapped inside.
That detail chilled jurors, who inferred Willingham showed more concern for his car than his kids.
"There was evidence of a fire that was deliberate," said juror Henry Ponder, now 81. "Not getting the children out of the house. Getting the car out of the way. It was all there."
Martin's case was brief, with just two witnesses. The first was the family baby sitter, who testified there was an oil lamp in the hallway, suggesting it might have spilled and spread flammable liquid. The second was a jail inmate, who was going to dispute the testimony of a jailhouse snitch who claimed Willingham had confessed. But the judge forbid most of his testimony as hearsay.
Willingham wasn't interested in explaining his behavior at trial. Outside the jury's presence, he took the stand to show for the record he had been advised of his right to testify.
"It's not that I don't wish to (testify), but I don't feel the need to," he said.
The jury returned its guilty verdict in 77 minutes.
"A lot of them wanted to vote right away," Dechaume said. "Me and two other people wanted to go over the facts of the case. It was unfair to go straight in there and decide. We went through everything we could have. All I can go by is what I had seen then."
Both Martin and co-counsel
Robert Dunn, who did not return a message from the AP, are experienced
attorneys who have represented clients in several capital murder cases. One of
Willingham's five appeals claimed he didn't receive adequate legal
representation, an argument repeatedly rejected by several appeals courts.
"God forbid that somebody was executed who was innocent. Nobody wants that to happen," Martin said. "But for somebody so obviously guilty like Willingham — it's a travesty to make it seem like it was something other than what it was."
http://corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/x546113010/-12-02-09-Jurors-defend-verdict-that-led-to-Texas-execution
Up next tonight, a Texas juror who sent a man to
his death now has doubts over her decision. Was this man, Cameron Todd
Willingham innocent? Our exclusive interview is with the juror and Willingham's
defense attorney who says something you might be surprised about. That's next.
And later, President Obama's trip to New Orleans, pledging progress and coming under fire for not doing enough to help the city recover. The response when "360" continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Tonight, we have two exclusive interviews in the death penalty case that is attracting worldwide attention. It also has the governor of Texas denying charges his state executed an innocent man.
But more than half a dozen forensic experts believe the fire that killed his three girls was not, in fact, arson. We've been reporting on this explosive story for months, looking for answers and trying to keep them honest.
Now we have two people who played central roles in the Willingham trial, his defense attorney and one of the jurors that convicted him. And as you'll see, the juror is coming forward with a stunning admission.
Randi Kaye joins us with the latest in this developing story.
You spoke with one of the jurors from the trial today. What did she say?
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, as you know it has been 17 years since Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of arson/homicide. And to this day, juror Dorinda Brokofsky told me by phone she still wonders if he was really guilty and she said something that quite frankly floored many of us here at 360.
Listen to this. She said her family was, quote, "good friends with Douglass Fog. Fog was one of the lead investigators on the case, a key witness for the prosecution. He determined the fire that killed Willingham's three little girls was arson and that Willingham had set it. That helped send Willingham to death row.
So if the juror knew this lead investigator, should she have been seated on that jury? She told me, I told them -- meaning the prosecution and the defense -- I knew Mr. Fog but they didn't care. Too late for Todd Willingham now but today lawyers told us, Anderson, that certainly it would have been grounds for a mistrial.
COOPER: Did she talk about whether or not she is having second thoughts over the years?
KAYE: It's been really hard for her, very difficult time for her all these years. She told me, quote, "I don't sleep at night because of a lot of this. I have gone back and forth in my mind trying to think of anything that we missed." She went on to say, quote, "I have to stand in front of my God one day and explain what I did."
When I told her that arson science has changed over the years and that at least half a dozen forensic experts now say the fire was not intentionally set, she said, quote, "I don't like the fact that years later someone is saying maybe we made a mistake."
Then she got so upset. She got off the phone. She told me she needed some time to process all this.
COOPER: You know, there was also a lot of claims that this man made a death row confession to another prisoner, another prisoner came forward with that story.
KAYE: Right. Actually, we got this affidavit today. This is the first time we've actually seen this. Willingham's ex-wife told her family that during her visit on death row, just days before the execution, Willingham confessed to killing his kids. The affidavit says he told her, quote, "He had set the fire because he knew that she was going to leave him. He figured if he did this, she would stay with him and she could get her tubes untied and they could start another family."
I do want to point out here that Willingham said just before he was executed, "I'm an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit." And that's a direct quote.
COOPER: And we've asked Governor Perry to come on this program. He's defended his decision again today to replace four members of the panel which was looking into the allegations that this was a botched execution.
KAYE: Right. This is a state panel trying to get to the bottom of what really happened here. And Governor Perry spoke with reporters at a Texas high school today and once again blasted a report about the state's hand picked expert that found arson in this case was, quote, "inconclusive."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RICK PERRY (R), TEXAS: If you look at the bulk of Mr. Byler's remarks over the last days and weeks, you will see a very politically-driven agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON
COOPER 360 DEGREES
Balloon
Chase Mystery Solved; Innocent Man Executed?; President Obama in New Orleans;
Cheating Death - Frozen Alive
Aired
October 15, 2009 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A
RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
And later, President Obama's trip to New Orleans, pledging progress and coming under fire for not doing enough to help the city recover. The response when "360" continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Tonight, we have two exclusive interviews in the death penalty case that is attracting worldwide attention. It also has the governor of Texas denying charges his state executed an innocent man.
But more than half a dozen forensic experts believe the fire that killed his three girls was not, in fact, arson. We've been reporting on this explosive story for months, looking for answers and trying to keep them honest.
Now we have two people who played central roles in the Willingham trial, his defense attorney and one of the jurors that convicted him. And as you'll see, the juror is coming forward with a stunning admission.
Randi Kaye joins us with the latest in this developing story.
You spoke with one of the jurors from the trial today. What did she say?
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, as you know it has been 17 years since Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of arson/homicide. And to this day, juror Dorinda Brokofsky told me by phone she still wonders if he was really guilty and she said something that quite frankly floored many of us here at 360.
Listen to this. She said her family was, quote, "good friends with Douglass Fog. Fog was one of the lead investigators on the case, a key witness for the prosecution. He determined the fire that killed Willingham's three little girls was arson and that Willingham had set it. That helped send Willingham to death row.
So if the juror knew this lead investigator, should she have been seated on that jury? She told me, I told them -- meaning the prosecution and the defense -- I knew Mr. Fog but they didn't care. Too late for Todd Willingham now but today lawyers told us, Anderson, that certainly it would have been grounds for a mistrial.
COOPER: Did she talk about whether or not she is having second thoughts over the years?
KAYE: It's been really hard for her, very difficult time for her all these years. She told me, quote, "I don't sleep at night because of a lot of this. I have gone back and forth in my mind trying to think of anything that we missed." She went on to say, quote, "I have to stand in front of my God one day and explain what I did."
When I told her that arson science has changed over the years and that at least half a dozen forensic experts now say the fire was not intentionally set, she said, quote, "I don't like the fact that years later someone is saying maybe we made a mistake."
Then she got so upset. She got off the phone. She told me she needed some time to process all this.
COOPER: You know, there was also a lot of claims that this man made a death row confession to another prisoner, another prisoner came forward with that story.
KAYE: Right. Actually, we got this affidavit today. This is the first time we've actually seen this. Willingham's ex-wife told her family that during her visit on death row, just days before the execution, Willingham confessed to killing his kids. The affidavit says he told her, quote, "He had set the fire because he knew that she was going to leave him. He figured if he did this, she would stay with him and she could get her tubes untied and they could start another family."
I do want to point out here that Willingham said just before he was executed, "I'm an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit." And that's a direct quote.
COOPER: And we've asked Governor Perry to come on this program. He's defended his decision again today to replace four members of the panel which was looking into the allegations that this was a botched execution.
KAYE: Right. This is a state panel trying to get to the bottom of what really happened here. And Governor Perry spoke with reporters at a Texas high school today and once again blasted a report about the state's hand picked expert that found arson in this case was, quote, "inconclusive."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RICK PERRY (R), TEXAS: If you look at the bulk of Mr. Byler's remarks over the last days and weeks, you will see a very politically-driven agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAYE: Governor Perry suggested the report is propaganda
for the anti-death penalty movement. When I asked that expert, Dr. Craig Byler,
who the governor was talking about the governor's comments, he called them,
quote, "strange and clueless."
Yesterday Dr. Byler had called on the commissioner's appointed by the governor to resign and insist those he removed be reinstated. The governor did not address that today but he did say the commission's work will go on.
But I will tell you Anderson, I checked. There is no date yet set on the calendar for this commission to continue its work and meet again on this case.
COOPER: A juror has doubts, as you just heard from Randi. More than half a dozen experts say the arson evidence Willingham was convicted on was not accurate. Still there are a lot of people who believe he was guilty and justice was served when he was executed.
Joining me now is David Martin, who was Willingham's defense attorney at trial. He says Willingham was a man without a conscience; also with us, Steve Mills, an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who has been following this case since 2004. He's focused a lot of attention on it when a lot of other folks hadn't.
David, you always believed that your client was guilty. Now over half a dozen experts have come forward to say that there is it no way the fire was arson. You still say he was guilty. Why?
DAVID MARTIN, CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Anderson, excuse my informal attire. We've been out checking cows. But it is nice to be with you. And tell me your question again.
COOPER: Well, you know, about half dozen fire experts around the country have looked at this case now and say that, you know, the evidence that was used, the arson evidence that was used simply is not accurate. That at the time people thought it was accurate. But there was already growing evidence that, you know, arson investigations, they evolve, they learned a lot. And what they knew then wasn't the case, wasn't accurate. MARTIN: No. That's not what I glean from these reports here, Anderson. I've got Craig Byler's report hear that I've read thoroughly and I dog-eared several pages and this is one of the least objective reports I've ever read.
COOPER: You think he's biased...
MARTIN: Let me give you an example.
COOPER: OK.
MARTIN: Look, look, here, page 49, Emmanuel Vasques (ph) is one of the most competent experts I ever cross-examination. He was a straight shooter and an honest guy. Look at what Byler says.
This is supposed to be a scientific report. I've been a trial lawyer 25 years, and for the last 20 doing nothing but complex business litigation. I have hired hundreds of experts.
If a guy told me this, look, returning to his mysticism he states -- referring to Mr. Vazquez, this is absurd, I wouldn't hire a guy like this. Here is another page. Remarkably he gleaned human intent from the physical evidence. Of course, and a criminal investigation and arson investigation you glean intent from the physical evidence.
COOPER: Well, let me interrupt you there. Because what a lot of people are saying is that the way evidence was interpreted back then...
MARTIN: A lot of people...
COOPER: Six different investigators...
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Let me tell you...
COOPER: Let me bring you into something -- Steve let me bring you into this case. You've been investigating this case. Do you believe Willingham was given a fair trial? And his defense team did all they could and that the evidence was accurate?
STEVE MILLS, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Well, I think the key issue here is the forensic evidence. And what we found when we investigated this in 2004 was that scientific advances in fire investigations has shown that indicators that they used back then no longer were valid. That they knew better in, you know, shortly after the fire, in fact.
Those advances were in place and were being distributed around the country to fire investigators. They used old wives tales and folklore rather than the real science that was at hand at the time.
COOPER: David, what about that?
MARTIN: That is absurd. Let me tell you something... COOPER: You say you couldn't find an expert to refute the testimony of the expert you have at the prosecution...
MARTIN: Hey, let me tell what you we did. Rob Dunn and I who tried this case with me, we went and bought carpet. We went and bought lighter fluid. We poured the lighter fluid on the carpet. We set it on fire. And when it finished burning, it looked just exactly like the carpet did in Todd Willingham's house.
COOPER: But I mean you were his defense attorney. Did you go out seeking people who believed him? Did you go out seeking experts who would argue or disagree with the prosecution?
MARTIN: No. Here's a gross misconception about defense -- criminal defense trial lawyers. When a client tells you his story, you don't just stupidly accept everything he says. The role of the defense attorney is to test the state's evidence. Vigorously cross examine their witnesses and can they prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? If they cannot, even if the person is guilty, he is found not guilty. That's the role of the defense attorney.
MILLS: Anderson, if I can interrupt for a second?
COOPER: David, let me ask you this, if there are six -- if there are six experts who have come forward saying the evidence was faulty, why couldn't you have put one of them on the stand?
MARTIN: That is not the case. That is not has what happened at all. I've read this report. I've looked at all of the evidence. Not one single person that you cite has ever said this is what caused the fire.
I was in the house. I talked to the cops. I talked to the firemen who were there very first on the scene. I looked at the pictures. When you walk through that house, the children's bedroom was set aflame, obviously, by an accelerant.
COOPER: David, I have to tell you, you sound like the sheriff you once were and not a defense attorney.
MARTIN: No, I don't. I wasn't a sheriff. I was a defense attorney. I represented hundreds of criminal defendants. I won lots of criminal cases. I've been a trial lawyer for 25 years.
COOPER: Steve, let me bring you in.
MILLS: Sure. In fact, Mr. Martin and Mr. Dunn did contact a fire expert up in Dallas. And that expert thought that Mr. Vazquez and Mr. Fog were correct. We tracked him down when we did our investigation. He had great regret that he had done that. He understood now that the science had changed, had advanced and he made a big mistake.
MARTIN: Am I still on?
COOPER: Yes. Go ahead, Steve. MARTIN: This is ridiculous.
COOPER: Go ahead, David.
MARTIN: This is absurd. Look, let me tell you something, you take lighter fluid, anybody in the audience, you pour it on a carpet and set it on fire, it looks just like those pictures. There was no question whatsoever that he was guilty.
But, look, the defense lawyer doesn't have to believe the client. You test the state's evidence. You read the record. We tried that case vigorously. Was it nine appellate courts that looked at it?
COOPER: All right.
MARTIN: This is an absurdity and Mr. Byler's report, I've read it in its entirety and this is not a clear-eyed objective report.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: What do you make, Steve, what do you think of these arson investigators who have come forward of Byler and the others?
MILLS: I think it's close to eight or nine investigators have looked at this, fire scientists have looked at this since. And all of them have come to the same conclusion.
MARTIN: Dude, name them. Name them. Besides Byler, name them.
MILLS: Gerald Hearst (ph), John Latini (ph); John Dehann (ph)...
MARTIN: Did anybody ever say here's what caused the fire? The kids' room was set on fire. The front hallway was set on fire. There is a refrigerator in front of the back door.
Look, the night after these kids died, he's down at the mud hole, which the mustang club. He brought all the people who contributed to him I don't know how much money because his kids died, he is buying a new dart board. He's buying a new pair of boots. He's buying rounds for the house.
That's what we're faced with in the trial of this case. That's the evidence that the jury hears. And that is indicia of guilt. That's why they found him guilty in less than 30 minutes.
COOPER: Steve...
MARTIN: But what?
MILLS: I don't think anybody is nominating him for husband of the year. But that's not what he was executed for.
MARTIN: Well, you're way off topic. You're way off topic. We're talking about the evidence presented.
(CROSSTALK) COOPER: David, you said he was buying drinks for somebody. He could be a jerk and respond badly to something. That doesn't make him guilty.
MARTIN: You wait just a minute. Wait a minute, he told four different stories. Now, look you represent -- I was appointed to represent him.
COOPER: Right.
MARTIN: And when I try a case, criminal case or civil case, I test the state's evidence. I thoroughly, vigorously cross examine.
COOPER: David, what do you make of the fact of what Steve mentioned that he's talked to the investigator you talked who at the time supported the evidence and now says, "You know what? I was wrong."
(CROSS TALK)
MARTIN: Well, I haven't seen that.
COOPER: You what?
MARTIN: Give me the guy's phone number and let me call him.
MILLS: Officials from the fire marshal's office also agree that the science has changed. Nearly every reputable fire scientists around the country agrees with this.
Now they don't say what caused the fire. They can't tell at this point. It's too late. The evidence has been destroyed. But what they point out is that the indicators that the investigators used at the time, Vazquez and Fog no longer meant anything.
MARTIN: The indicator? Look, you pour lighter fluid on a carpet and you set it on fire, it looks just like --
COOPER: David, you're not an investigator. You're not an arson expert. So the idea that you had poured the accelerant and came to an opinion...
MARTIN: No, I am an investigator. I'm the trial lawyer. I'm the trial lawyer. I put on the evidence. I investigate. I talk to the witnesses. I examine the evidence. I dig the thing to the very bottom of the case and I present...
COOPER: Why did your client then try to get you off the case and try to get another attorney?
MARTIN: That's absurd. When did he ever try to get me off the case? That is ridiculous.
COOPER: Didn't he also get another attorney?
MARTIN: No. If he wanted another attorney, the county of Novaro (ph), Texas, would have paid for another lawyer.
COOPER: Steve, he did get another lawyer, didn't he?
MILLS: He had another lawyer on appeal.
COOPER: On appeal.
MILLS: On his final appeal.
MARTIN: Well, yes, he had another lawyer on appeal. I'm not the appellate lawyer, I'm the trial lawyer. I tried the case.
COOPER: All right. We're -- we went over time. It was a great discussion. I appreciate both of you guys coming on; David Martin and Steve Mills. We'll continue to follow it. We do appreciate both your expertise. Thank you.
Yesterday Dr. Byler had called on the commissioner's appointed by the governor to resign and insist those he removed be reinstated. The governor did not address that today but he did say the commission's work will go on.
But I will tell you Anderson, I checked. There is no date yet set on the calendar for this commission to continue its work and meet again on this case.
COOPER: A juror has doubts, as you just heard from Randi. More than half a dozen experts say the arson evidence Willingham was convicted on was not accurate. Still there are a lot of people who believe he was guilty and justice was served when he was executed.
Joining me now is David Martin, who was Willingham's defense attorney at trial. He says Willingham was a man without a conscience; also with us, Steve Mills, an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who has been following this case since 2004. He's focused a lot of attention on it when a lot of other folks hadn't.
David, you always believed that your client was guilty. Now over half a dozen experts have come forward to say that there is it no way the fire was arson. You still say he was guilty. Why?
DAVID MARTIN, CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Anderson, excuse my informal attire. We've been out checking cows. But it is nice to be with you. And tell me your question again.
COOPER: Well, you know, about half dozen fire experts around the country have looked at this case now and say that, you know, the evidence that was used, the arson evidence that was used simply is not accurate. That at the time people thought it was accurate. But there was already growing evidence that, you know, arson investigations, they evolve, they learned a lot. And what they knew then wasn't the case, wasn't accurate. MARTIN: No. That's not what I glean from these reports here, Anderson. I've got Craig Byler's report hear that I've read thoroughly and I dog-eared several pages and this is one of the least objective reports I've ever read.
COOPER: You think he's biased...
MARTIN: Let me give you an example.
COOPER: OK.
MARTIN: Look, look, here, page 49, Emmanuel Vasques (ph) is one of the most competent experts I ever cross-examination. He was a straight shooter and an honest guy. Look at what Byler says.
This is supposed to be a scientific report. I've been a trial lawyer 25 years, and for the last 20 doing nothing but complex business litigation. I have hired hundreds of experts.
If a guy told me this, look, returning to his mysticism he states -- referring to Mr. Vazquez, this is absurd, I wouldn't hire a guy like this. Here is another page. Remarkably he gleaned human intent from the physical evidence. Of course, and a criminal investigation and arson investigation you glean intent from the physical evidence.
COOPER: Well, let me interrupt you there. Because what a lot of people are saying is that the way evidence was interpreted back then...
MARTIN: A lot of people...
COOPER: Six different investigators...
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Let me tell you...
COOPER: Let me bring you into something -- Steve let me bring you into this case. You've been investigating this case. Do you believe Willingham was given a fair trial? And his defense team did all they could and that the evidence was accurate?
STEVE MILLS, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Well, I think the key issue here is the forensic evidence. And what we found when we investigated this in 2004 was that scientific advances in fire investigations has shown that indicators that they used back then no longer were valid. That they knew better in, you know, shortly after the fire, in fact.
Those advances were in place and were being distributed around the country to fire investigators. They used old wives tales and folklore rather than the real science that was at hand at the time.
COOPER: David, what about that?
MARTIN: That is absurd. Let me tell you something... COOPER: You say you couldn't find an expert to refute the testimony of the expert you have at the prosecution...
MARTIN: Hey, let me tell what you we did. Rob Dunn and I who tried this case with me, we went and bought carpet. We went and bought lighter fluid. We poured the lighter fluid on the carpet. We set it on fire. And when it finished burning, it looked just exactly like the carpet did in Todd Willingham's house.
COOPER: But I mean you were his defense attorney. Did you go out seeking people who believed him? Did you go out seeking experts who would argue or disagree with the prosecution?
MARTIN: No. Here's a gross misconception about defense -- criminal defense trial lawyers. When a client tells you his story, you don't just stupidly accept everything he says. The role of the defense attorney is to test the state's evidence. Vigorously cross examine their witnesses and can they prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? If they cannot, even if the person is guilty, he is found not guilty. That's the role of the defense attorney.
MILLS: Anderson, if I can interrupt for a second?
COOPER: David, let me ask you this, if there are six -- if there are six experts who have come forward saying the evidence was faulty, why couldn't you have put one of them on the stand?
MARTIN: That is not the case. That is not has what happened at all. I've read this report. I've looked at all of the evidence. Not one single person that you cite has ever said this is what caused the fire.
I was in the house. I talked to the cops. I talked to the firemen who were there very first on the scene. I looked at the pictures. When you walk through that house, the children's bedroom was set aflame, obviously, by an accelerant.
COOPER: David, I have to tell you, you sound like the sheriff you once were and not a defense attorney.
MARTIN: No, I don't. I wasn't a sheriff. I was a defense attorney. I represented hundreds of criminal defendants. I won lots of criminal cases. I've been a trial lawyer for 25 years.
COOPER: Steve, let me bring you in.
MILLS: Sure. In fact, Mr. Martin and Mr. Dunn did contact a fire expert up in Dallas. And that expert thought that Mr. Vazquez and Mr. Fog were correct. We tracked him down when we did our investigation. He had great regret that he had done that. He understood now that the science had changed, had advanced and he made a big mistake.
MARTIN: Am I still on?
COOPER: Yes. Go ahead, Steve. MARTIN: This is ridiculous.
COOPER: Go ahead, David.
MARTIN: This is absurd. Look, let me tell you something, you take lighter fluid, anybody in the audience, you pour it on a carpet and set it on fire, it looks just like those pictures. There was no question whatsoever that he was guilty.
But, look, the defense lawyer doesn't have to believe the client. You test the state's evidence. You read the record. We tried that case vigorously. Was it nine appellate courts that looked at it?
COOPER: All right.
MARTIN: This is an absurdity and Mr. Byler's report, I've read it in its entirety and this is not a clear-eyed objective report.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: What do you make, Steve, what do you think of these arson investigators who have come forward of Byler and the others?
MILLS: I think it's close to eight or nine investigators have looked at this, fire scientists have looked at this since. And all of them have come to the same conclusion.
MARTIN: Dude, name them. Name them. Besides Byler, name them.
MILLS: Gerald Hearst (ph), John Latini (ph); John Dehann (ph)...
MARTIN: Did anybody ever say here's what caused the fire? The kids' room was set on fire. The front hallway was set on fire. There is a refrigerator in front of the back door.
Look, the night after these kids died, he's down at the mud hole, which the mustang club. He brought all the people who contributed to him I don't know how much money because his kids died, he is buying a new dart board. He's buying a new pair of boots. He's buying rounds for the house.
That's what we're faced with in the trial of this case. That's the evidence that the jury hears. And that is indicia of guilt. That's why they found him guilty in less than 30 minutes.
COOPER: Steve...
MARTIN: But what?
MILLS: I don't think anybody is nominating him for husband of the year. But that's not what he was executed for.
MARTIN: Well, you're way off topic. You're way off topic. We're talking about the evidence presented.
(CROSSTALK) COOPER: David, you said he was buying drinks for somebody. He could be a jerk and respond badly to something. That doesn't make him guilty.
MARTIN: You wait just a minute. Wait a minute, he told four different stories. Now, look you represent -- I was appointed to represent him.
COOPER: Right.
MARTIN: And when I try a case, criminal case or civil case, I test the state's evidence. I thoroughly, vigorously cross examine.
COOPER: David, what do you make of the fact of what Steve mentioned that he's talked to the investigator you talked who at the time supported the evidence and now says, "You know what? I was wrong."
(CROSS TALK)
MARTIN: Well, I haven't seen that.
COOPER: You what?
MARTIN: Give me the guy's phone number and let me call him.
MILLS: Officials from the fire marshal's office also agree that the science has changed. Nearly every reputable fire scientists around the country agrees with this.
Now they don't say what caused the fire. They can't tell at this point. It's too late. The evidence has been destroyed. But what they point out is that the indicators that the investigators used at the time, Vazquez and Fog no longer meant anything.
MARTIN: The indicator? Look, you pour lighter fluid on a carpet and you set it on fire, it looks just like --
COOPER: David, you're not an investigator. You're not an arson expert. So the idea that you had poured the accelerant and came to an opinion...
MARTIN: No, I am an investigator. I'm the trial lawyer. I'm the trial lawyer. I put on the evidence. I investigate. I talk to the witnesses. I examine the evidence. I dig the thing to the very bottom of the case and I present...
COOPER: Why did your client then try to get you off the case and try to get another attorney?
MARTIN: That's absurd. When did he ever try to get me off the case? That is ridiculous.
COOPER: Didn't he also get another attorney?
MARTIN: No. If he wanted another attorney, the county of Novaro (ph), Texas, would have paid for another lawyer.
COOPER: Steve, he did get another lawyer, didn't he?
MILLS: He had another lawyer on appeal.
COOPER: On appeal.
MILLS: On his final appeal.
MARTIN: Well, yes, he had another lawyer on appeal. I'm not the appellate lawyer, I'm the trial lawyer. I tried the case.
COOPER: All right. We're -- we went over time. It was a great discussion. I appreciate both of you guys coming on; David Martin and Steve Mills. We'll continue to follow it. We do appreciate both your expertise. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment