Cameron Todd Willingham Execution

Question 1

The investigators took a video a few days after the fire as they went to the house to find out what happened. They got clues that made them conclude that Willingham intentionally set the fire. They also presented Willingham's criminal records that showed he was on drugs and his wife's testimony that said Willingham beat her when she was pregnant. The prosecutors argued that if he could abuse his pregnant wife, he could kill his three children.

Question 2

The counter-arguments presented in Willingham's innocence supported that the investigative report submitted did not show any arson evidence. The investigators intentionally ignored evidence that did not match their theory, which was termed junk science (Simner, 2012) . Willingham's wife disagreed with the prosecutors stating that even if he beat her when she was pregnant, he could not kill their children.

Question 3

During the investigations, several inappropriate ideologies were used, which included the fact that the prosecutor thought that Willingham was a devil worshiper just because there was a pentagram shape in the children's bedroom. That Todd liked heavy metals associated with devil worshiping.

Question 4

With the emergence of new scientific methods used to analyze the evidence, the investigators should now be in better positions to solve past cases unsolvable in the previous years since there is the discovery of DNA, which helps read clues fingerprints, footprints, and bite marks. This will help in the solving of the past cases.

Question 5

Inappropriate application fire investigation methods make the profession look incompetent and unreliable. It makes people lose trust in it and feel that they cannot solve a fire case professionally.

Question 6

Investigators need to make sure that their conclusion is objective and scientifically sound by ensuring that they can easily support their hypothesis and predictions in the report produces. They should ensure that they analyze the data they get before concluding. They must reject, modify or accept the hypothesis, which will ensure that their conclusions are scientifically sound and with no discrepancies.

References

Simner, J. (2012). Ashes to Ashes: The Sad Case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Amicus Journal , 20-23.