EARLIER this year my colleague wrote

What is hard to imagine is that a state might actually admit that it had executed an innocent person. But up until recently, Texas was getting awfully close.

Thanks to David Grann's piece in the New Yorker last month, the case of Cameron Todd Willingham is getting the exposure it deserves. Willingham was executed by the state of Texas for setting fire to his home in 1991. The blaze killed his three young children. His conviction was largely a result of the testimony of two local arson investigators, who said Mr Willingham had deliberately set the fire. But subsequent reviews found troubling problems with the arson finding. In 2004, as Willingham sat on death row protesting his innocence, an independent investigator reviewed the original report and concluded that the fire was accidental and that the initial investigation was based on "junk science". That report was sent to the governor's office and the Board of Pardons and Paroles, but Willingham's appeals were turned down and he was executed on February 17th 2004.

Since that time, there have been three other investigations into the fire. Here are the results, as summed up by the Chicago Tribune:

Over the past five years, the Willingham case has been reviewed by nine of the nation’s top fire scientists—first for the Tribune, then for the Innocence Project, and now for the [Texas Forensic Science Commission]. All concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson.

So there seems to have been a bit of a foul-up with the initial investigation, as even the prosecutor admits. Could this be the case that anti-death-penalty advocates have dreamed of—where a state actually admits to killing an innocent man? Of course not.

Shortly after the Texas Forensic Science Commission was formed in 2005 it took up the Willingham case. The commission hired Craig Beyler to review the initial investigation and, as noted by the Tribune, he reported that the original findings were deeply flawed. Mr Beyler was set to present his review to the commission last month when... three (and now four) of the commission members, including the chairman, were replaced by the governor, Rick Perry.

The governor was perfectly within his rights to do this, but the timing seems a bit suspect. After all, Mr Perry allowed the execution to proceed in 2004, despite having in hand the first of the reports that questioned the investigation. The governor, who is up for re-election in 2010 and facing a very tough primary battle, has dismissed that report, and all the others, calling the fire investigators who reviewed the case, "latter-day supposed experts". (For supposed experts, they have very impressive resumes.) The now-former commision chairman also says he felt pressured by aides to Mr Perry. The governor, as you may have guessed, remains confident that Willingham was guilty.

Mr Perry is not the first politician to show disdain for experts and science—it seems to happen rather often when the science doesn't comport with one's personal views. You might think that the importance of a death penalty case would lead to a more considered approach, but a flagrant disregard for evidence is what has allowed the death penalty to persist all these years. A substantial amount of research shows it comes at a high cost to states without deterring murder. More than 130 people who had been sentenced to death have been subsequently exonerated. Yet a majority of Americans continue to support executions, perhaps because this is the way we show our indignation for the evil act of murder. Revenge demands blood—even the blood of an innocent man, it now seems.

(More on the Willingham case: The prosecutor in the case claims that testimony from the trial, apart from the arson investigation, "contains overwhelming evidence of guilt". I am not convinced, but you can be the judge. Both the orignal New Yorkerarticle and subsequent follow-ups refute the prosecutor's claims.)

(Photo credit: AFP)