The Frontline treatment of the Cameron Todd Willingham saga is gripping, balanced and provocative.  Don’t worry if you missed it; you can watch the entire program online.

Hour-long documentaries are frequently crammed with fluff and filler, but the Willingham case demands in-depth treatment to be understood and “Death by Fire” delivers.  Here are some of the conclusions:

• Mr. Willingham was abandoned by his biological mother, sniffed inhalants as a pre-adolescent, and (in his brother’s opinion) possessed the intellect of a typical eleven year-old.
• Willingham was a mullet-wearing redneck who loved heavy metal music.
• Willingham was a wife abuser.
• Willingham didn’t make a heroic effort to save his children.
• Willingham’s wife, Tracy, refused to visit him in prison for twelve years, but didn’t think Todd was guilty until shortly before his execution.
• Every fire expert who has ever examined the forensic evidence has concluded that the fire that claimed the lives of three children started accidentally.
• Virtually every person involved with the investigation and prosecution of the state’s case against Willingham discounts the testimony of  the forensic experts.
• The defense attorney who represented Willingham believes the state’s case against him was overwhelming and initially counseled his client to take a plea.
• Governor Rick Perry and Williamson County DA John Bradley (the Perry-appointed chairman of the State Forensic Science Commission) have both called Willingham a monster because, while strapped to the gurney, he hurled an angry obscenity at his ex-wife.
• Most of the good people of Corsicana, Texas (the site of both the fire and the subsequent trial) believe Willingham was guilty as charged because (a) he was an abusive husband, (b) a jury of his peers found him guilty, and (c) he didn’t show sufficient remorse.

“Death by Fire” is a study in the sociology of the law.  Because three innocent children died a horrible death, somebody had to pay.  Cameron Todd Willingham was not a good man.  He wasn’t doing enough to support his family.  He beat his wife.  He didn’t do enough to save his children.  He had Heavy Metal posters on his bedroom walls.  In this adolescent years he took drugs and committed petty crimes.  Ergo, he was guilty.

Would the jury have sentenced Willingham to death if they hadn’t been assured by local officials that the fire was deliberately set?  Would Willingham have even gone to trial apart from this testimony?  Hard to say.

But now that the forensic testimony has been completely debunked, hardly anyone associated with this case is backing away from their original assessment.

We saw the same phenomenon in Tulia, Texas after Tom Coleman was exposed as a racist idiot; people still stood by their sheriff and his big drug bust.

Most disturbing of all are the folks (see the comments section) who say flat-out that Willingham deserved to die even if he didn’t set the fire because he was a wife abusing, no account redneck who could have done more to save his kids.  I was reminded of the trial of David Earl Johnson in Tulia, Texas.  David was convicted of manslaughter because, the jury concluded, he took too long to get his child to the hospital. 

The assumption is that bad people deserve to die for not being good people.  You can see this attitude in Mississippi where folks consider it reasonable to give two life sentences to Jamie and Gladys Scott for a stick-up that allegedly netted $11.  Any crime, it seems, is worthy of the ultimate penalty.  If the defendant is an unimpressive human being, we are back to executing hungry urchins for stealing a loaf of bread.

The most pathetic performer in the Willingham melodrama is David Martin, the attorney who remains convinced of his client’s guilt even after the physical evidence has been swept from the table.  Is he working on a hunch here?  Or is he so enmeshed in the culture of his community that he is no longer capable of individual thought?  I have met this kind of attorney before.  Kregg Hukill, Joe Moore’s attorney in Tulia, began his closing statement by assuring the jury that his client had made many, many mistakes in his life (I give Hukill a bad time in my book, Taking out the Trash in Tulia, Texas).  Blane Williams, Mychal Bell’s attorney in Jena, didn’t call a single defense witness. 

Defense attorneys rarely defend innocent people.  After a while, it’s easier to simply assume they are all guilty.  Once you have taken that step you can’t afford to admit you were wrong.  Perhaps Martin mounted a vigorous defense despite his lack of faith in his client.  If you want to see for yourself, Frontline provides links to the complete trial transcript and virtually every other document associated with this case.  That’s impressive.