Todd Willingham Corsicana Case

559 Words3 Pages

Before the advancements in science and DNA discovery, there have been many men and woman executed for a crime he/she did not commite. After DNA was discovered there have been cases where DNA has exonerated date row inmates. If DNA wasn't discovered many men and women would have been executed and if DNA testing was available earlier it would have easily proven that Cameron Todd Willingham, Corsicana, Texas was innocent. In 1992 Cameron Todd Willingham was founded guilty in Corsicana, Texas for setting a fire in his with his three daughters in the house. Willingham was able to escape from the fire but his daughters, unfortunately, did not stand a chance. After the firefighters were able to enter the house little girls were found dead in the …show more content…

One evidence that was presented in court was that "It was discovered that the fire was caused by a type of liquid accelerant" (Clarke, 2007). The first arson expert on the case attempts to the investigator the cause of the fire by tracing the fire to its points of origin and then found that the fire was caused by a liquid accelerant. “an accelerant is any substance or mixture that "accelerates" the development of fire. Accelerants are often used to commit arson, and some accelerants may cause an explosion” (Wikipedia.org/Fire_accelerant). Another was the fellow inmate, Johnny E. Webb, who testified that Willingham confessed to him that he was the one that set the fire with his daughters inside the house.However, "the acceptance of the testimony of his fellow inmate was controversial because this was a confession that was not really proven to be true (Williams, 2012). The inmate may have made up the story & lied in court I order to reduce his sentence. Johnny E. Webb was a drug addict and was on psychiatric medications. Never-less the inmate testimony was taken serious and Willingham was given the death penalty. “Evidence discovered years after the Willingham execution showed that the prosecution had given Webb favorable treatment, then deliberately elicited perjured testimony from

Open Document