Interview Jimmie Hensley
Hensley has been a sergeant with the Corsicana Police Department for more than 24 years. He worked as a homicide investigator on the Willingham case. Since then, Hensley has been trained in arson investigation. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on March 23, 2010.
What do you remember about the time of the Willingham fire?
The department received a call of a fire at a residence on West 11th Street. They responded to the blaze and was able to extinguish it once they made entry into the house. They found the body of three young children that had died in the fire. The occupant, Cameron Todd Willingham, was present on the scene and was in the house there in the fire. He escaped with minor injuries. The wife and the mother of the three kids [was] away from the house at the time.
Was this the first time you had come across a crime like this?
This was the first time I had been to what resulted in an arson investigation, yes. Since then I have been to school, and currently I am a certified arson investigator for the state of Texas.
Was this case what sparked your interest in becoming an arson investigator?
The case is what sparked it off, plus the department realized that there was a need for somebody trained in arson investigation within the department. The city has a fire marshal that investigates arson, but this one also involved a homicide, too. So we worked together on that, and it's better if you have somebody trained in arson investigation so you've got someone who understands what's going on while you're doing your investigation. ...
So the fire happened; they cleared the scene. Then describe to me how the next investigation goes and at what point you get called in.
OK, after a fire, the fire department goes in and tries to determine the cause of any structure fire, whether it be criminal or accidental. Accidental fires usually result in insurance claims and things, so you need to know what caused a fire, if possible. They go in, and they start reading the fire. They're trained to look at the burn patterns in the fire; they check electro-outlet gas stoves, anything that might cause a fire accidentally. And if that is not present, then they start looking for other sources. And they started finding some other things that made them very suspicious. ...
[So this is the day after the fire, and Assistant Fire Chief Doug Fogg is walking through. What is it that makes him call you to the scene?]
OK, a fire tells a story. The burn patterns of a fire tell a story. Fire burns up, and if it doesn't burn up, if it burns down low, there's usually a reason for it. And they started finding where the fire had burned low and not consistent with an accidental fire. And once he found some of these signs, then it raised red flags, and then you start a different type of investigation where you start looking for what we call burn patterns and pour patterns on the floors and concrete and things like that. That would indicate an accelerant had been added to the house to bolster the fire. And that is what he found.
You were with Mr. Fogg during this investigation. Can you tell me about some of the other things that made you think this is not right?
Well, in the children's room, there were signs of what we thought was an accelerant poured on the floor, burn marks underneath the floorboards of the floor once we tore the floor up to look, because usually accelerants will leak through the cracks of the floors or something and burn underneath. And fire burns up. So if there's no reason for something to go under there normally, then you start questioning why this happened.
There's a lot of reasons this could happen besides the accelerant. It could be particles inside the house that might melt and run down, but you won't know until you get it tested. The fire charring can indicate where the hot spots were in the room, where the most fire was. The way things melt and run can indicate a direction of a fire and different things like that.
At the time I was walking through, I didn't understand all this. He was explaining it to me because I had never been in school at that time, and I was just learning as I was going, too, because when I first walked in there, it just looked like a burnt building. Everything was burned up, and I didn't see how anybody could figure out anything in there. But after listening to him and then going to school, I got to understand what they were talking about, and I could look back and see what he was talking about and understand how it happened the way he explained it. And I helped them take samples and things like that.
You've been trained in arson investigation and know a lot more now. When you go back and look at the photos and videos you took at the time, do you think, are you more or less impressed with the job that Mr. Fogg and [deputy fire marshal] Mr. [Manuel] Vasquez did?
I think they did a very good job. I think they did as they were trained and did a thorough job. I think they limited all possibilities where it could have been an accident, and that only left one other conclusion, and it was a set fire.
What thoughts were going through your head right as you pulled up to the scene?
First [thoughts as I] pull up to the scene is, how are we going to find anything in this burned-out house? I'm sad because I know that three people have died in this house, three young kids that will never get the chance to grow up and live a life, and that's very sad. And going through the house, you go through with a purpose. You want to know what caused this fire, even if it was accidental.
You don't want to go there with the idea at first that it's manmade unless it's very obvious. But you're hoping you'll find it's accidental. You don't think that maybe somebody had actually burned up three children. ... But as we go along, it looks more and more like it was a crime.
What was the biggest evidence that made you believe that?
It wasn't necessarily one piece of evidence. It's a totality of all the evidence put together, plus his actions and his statements. A lot of his statements he made later on was proved that it couldn't have happened that way through the scientific evidence, that what he says is not possible. Plus he's constantly changing his story, and he never showed remorse. And putting the whole picture together is what made me believe that yes, this did happen; it was a planned deal.
You had a very long interview with Mr. Willingham that's recorded. Walk me through what you remember of that interview.
While interviewing, we tried first to get the whole story, his side of the story as to what happened, because if he changes his story, we want the first story down on paper. So we interviewed him, and during this time, he acted like it was a show interview. He didn't show a lot of remorse or any at all that I can see. It was more like, I'm in the limelight; this is me.
I got the feeling that maybe he was enjoying being there. It was not like somebody that I would figure, a parent that just lost three children in a house fire. Any remorse he tried to show to me looked like it was false; it was put on; it was a show. That's what I got out of the interview. Plus, the things he said and the story he told was not feasible, not consistent with the evidence that was later proved.
Can you give me an example of what exactly he did that made you feel like he was putting on a show?
Well, just the tone of voice he used, more like he was bragging about it than being remorseful. He was more like he was proud of his actions that he claimed he tried to do to save his kids and stuff, which later proved to be false. Just his whole demeanor to me looked like he just wanted to tell a story. And later on, as this goes on, that's what he does. He goes and tells stories.
What were some of the contradictory stories you said he told?
He told us that he was asleep in bed, and his daughter come running in the room, and his daughter is 2 years old, come running into the room, yelling, "Daddy, Daddy!," and he woke up and that there was smoke everywhere. He said he sleeps in the nude, and he had to find his pants. He felt around on the floor and found his pants and put them on. And then he told us it was so smoky he couldn't hardly figure out where the doors were. He told us that he told his daughter to get out of the house, which I thought was strange. If he couldn't see where to go, how is his 2-year-old going to find a way out? And this is just me thinking as I'm talking to him.
He says he goes out, and he goes into the kitchen where there's less smoke. Well, I didn't understand why he would first go into the kitchen to start with, because his children were supposed to be in the other end of the house, in the bedroom.
He says that from the kitchen then he made his way down the hallway and into the bedroom. He said once he got in the bedroom, it was so smoky, he couldn't hardly see. He could see fire on top of the ceiling. He said he got on his hands and knees and prowled around on the floor and couldn't find his children. Well, I thought that was strange, because it's a small bedroom. It's not very large. And the two twins were found just right inside the doorway.
Then he said he came out, and he told us when he came out that he tried the door handle, and it wasn't hot, so he was able to open the door and then go outside into the air and get some fresh air. Once we did our investigation, we found that he was barefoot when he come out and he had no burns on his feet, but we could see where there were burns in the hallway, and we couldn't figure out how he got out without burning his feet.
Also, when they got into the hospital, they run a test of carbon monoxide in his lungs, and the doctor said that he had about the same amount of carbon monoxide as you would find in somebody that smokes a cigarette, not somebody that woke up in a smoke-filled room, which was not consistent with his story.
He did have some minor burns on his shoulder, and his hair was singed, but to me the injuries were not consistent to being in a burning house that supposedly was burning so bad that he had to get out and couldn't find his kids.
To this day I don't know if he had wanted to, he could have saved the 2-year-old that had come running, because he said that she had got in the bed with him. Well, how are you going to lose a child in a bed? It's just not a very big place, so his story wasn't consistent with the evidence when we did the interview.
And as time goes on, he tells more and more different stories, and each one tends to make him look better. Once he got outside, I cannot find anybody that said he made an attempt to get back in to save his kids. We've got witnesses next door who said that they tried to get him to go back in, and he wouldn't do it because at the time they couldn't see no flames. They could see smoke coming out the window and the door, but they couldn't see no actual flames and nothing in the back of the house, so they felt like he would have had time to go back in and at least make an effort.
Another thing that's not consistent is there was a child barrier across the doorway in the twins' room, and I don't see how the 2-year-old could have climbed over that barricade. The 2-year-old is not very big, especially in a smoke-filled house. But I don't think she'd have the mental capability of figuring out how to climb over in a smoke-filled room myself.
He did say that he broke the windows out of the front bedroom, which caused the fire to get even worse. It added oxygen into the house and makes the fire go even bigger. He did have the frame of mind to push his Cadillac from beside the house; it was beside the room that was burning. He pushed it back out of the way so it wouldn't get burnt, but yet he made no effort to go into the house to try and save his children. He did put on an act, in my opinion, of yelling and screaming, but in my opinion, after further investigation and hearing all the stories and stuff, I feel it was just an act.
He was taken to the hospital, and while he was at the hospital, he was heard talking on the phone ordering caskets for his children, at which time he was not showing any remorse, and as soon as he got through he asked a friend who was with him to go to Whataburger, get him something to eat and bring it back. He was more interested in eating than the fact with his children being dead, and to me that's just not consistent with a father who just lost his children accidentally. It's just not consistent.
And these were the things that made me start believing that he had set the fire. We found places where we believe that accelerants were poured along the front porch and in front of the windows and inside the children's room and in the hallway, which would be consistent with an arson.
Describe as best you think what might have happened.
From all the interviews and information I've got, I feel like he had done something to one of the children. I felt that all along, that maybe he was covering up another crime. Later, when he was in the county jail, he did tell a prisoner [Johnny Webb] over there that he had disciplined one of the children and thought he killed one of the children and had set the fire to cover that fact up. I'm under the belief that probably that is what had happened. ...
[Editors' Note: Read Johnny Webb's trial testimony here, beginning on page 21 of the first PDF. Webb later recanted this testimony -- but then recanted his recantation.]
He could have poured the accelerants in the bedroom and trailed it out to the hallway and poured accelerants down the hallway and to the front door and lit it at the front door. And he might have went back in; he might have forgotten something. You never know.
Which could explain the burns?
That could explain the burns on the upper part of him. He had none on the lower extremities. Or he might have set the fire inside the house and come out. Sometimes if you use a certain chemical like gasoline or lighter fluid or something, it burns pretty fast and can go pretty quick, and a lot of arsonists get caught in their own fires to a certain extent and burn themselves. ...
He was a very violent person. It goes back to his childhood. He's always been violent. He's [been] arrested several times. I've got witnesses who say he's abused his wife. He'd strike his wife, knocking her to the ground and stuff. So he's a very violent person.
I heard people say that he did not want the children, the twins anyway, that it was not a planned pregnancy, and, in fact, that he abused her while she was pregnant. I feel like the two children interfered with his fun life. He loved to go to the bars and throw darts and was in a dart league. The day after the fire, he'd come back and was escorted through the house with the assistant fire chief, and he started looking for his dart set and dartboard and was very upset when he couldn't find it, and was sure some kid in the neighborhood had come stole his darts.
He also come back with a friend, and they were loading clothes and stuff into a truck to take away, and the neighbor said he had a boom box, loud music going, and they were just laughing and talking. And I just don't see how you can do that when you are in a house where your children died just a couple of days earlier. It just don't seem right to me.
Later on, we had a local club or bar downtown that he used to frequent and throw darts at, and they were very sad about it, and they took up a collection to help him with the funeral costs and stuff, and he took the money and bought himself a new pair of boots, had the lady at the bar order him a high-dollar set of Piranha darts. I don't see how anybody could think of throwing darts or being in a dart league when you just buried your children. To me, it just doesn't add up.
It shows a picture of somebody that just really didn't care. After the jury found him guilty, then we had to do a pre-sentencing investigation to determine whether or not he would be considered a threat to society, and they do that before they give the death penalty. So I traveled to Oklahoma, ... where he was from, and interviewed his friends and relatives and law enforcement agencies up there and found that as a juvenile he was very violent.
He's got a half-brother serving life in Texas prison for murder, and if he ever gets out, then Oklahoma has a capital murder charge on him that he was found guilty. I believe it was Arkansas where his half-brother went on a murder spree, he and this other guy, killing people. Him and his half-brother when they were young got mad at a subject and went and stole the people's dog and took it out in the country and beat it with sticks trying to kill it, and when they couldn't kill it, they ran over it with a vehicle just for revenge. Just a violent person.
He went to Oklahoma ... and was telling his friends different versions of how it happened. In fact, he told his wife, Stacy, that when the fire started he went in there, tried to find the children, couldn't, and when he come out, he kicked the door down; said it was on fire and he kicked it. At least on his bare foot there was no indication of burn marks on his feet. Plus, the door opens to the inside; it doesn't open to the outside, so you're going to have a hard time kicking a front door in barefooted. ...
At one point he told somebody that he went out the back door, which was barred by a refrigerator and had been that way for a long time, before the house caught on fire. The wife had him bar the back door with the refrigerator for whatever reason. His stories kept changing, but each time he would try to make himself look good on this and never showed remorse. It was like he was enjoying the attention.
Putting that whole picture together, plus the evidence we found, made me believe that he was guilty of homicide, that he killed his three little girls. And my job was to find how them little girls died, and if it is a criminal act, it's my job to build a case so he can be prosecuted for his act.
And I feel like we did that; we did a good job. And I feel like it was taken to the courts and to the jury and that they made a decision that he was guilty, and he was sentenced, and later on the sentence was carried out. I feel like justice was served for those three little girls, because all along there has been a lot of publicity on this, but it was all centered around Cameron Todd Willingham, who, in my opinion, was a murderer. Why do you need so much publicity? Nobody ever talks about it in terms of these three children who burned up, who never had a chance, that never got to really enjoy any type of life. They want to make him a star. How could anybody want to make a criminal, a murderer of your own children, a star? He's not worth the time.
There's been a lot of news coverage on the investigation that we had here. We've been referred to as small-town hicks. We get the same training, the state training, as the Dallas Fire Department gets, as their fire investigators get. We go to the same schools. The training is the same. We apply the same methods that they do. There is a project going on that is trying to get rid of the death penalty, and they try to use this as one of their premiere cases. They try to make Cameron Todd Willingham a poster child is what it amounts to. And that's wrong. No matter what your agenda is, you can't make a murderer a poster child in my opinion.
There's an arson investigator in Austin [Gerald Hurst], who is I guess is self-employed now -- he must be an expert -- who [in] his lab in the basement of his house determined that it could not be arson. And he cited a lot of reasons why it could not be arson. He was looking at a lot of pictures and videos; he never was at the scene. In fact, he didn't even know about the case for 20 years. But just looking at pictures and stuff, he said it couldn't have been arson; that the different things that we brought up as evidence could have been caused by natural things in a fire; electrical fire could have caused the same things. Well, that's possibly true, but it also could have happened in an arson, too. The thing is, we eliminated all those possibilities of gas or accidental things that could have caused the fire.
So if they're eliminated and they're not present, then it's arson. And with all his findings, he never did tell nobody what caused the fire. He can sit there and look at his pictures all day and say this didn't cause the fire, but he has yet to tell us what caused the fire. And 20 years later, anybody can look at pictures and draw any kind of conclusions they want to. You've got to go to the scene of where those pictures were taken and see it in real time to really make an accurate judgment, in my opinion.
I think the police department and the fire department and the state fire marshal, I think the district attorney, everybody did a fine job. They worked hard on this case. We didn't want to be wrong; we didn't want to charge somebody [who] we thought was guilty of the crime. And eventually at the end, it was a jury of 12 people of this community who determined that with all the evidence presented to them that he was guilty, and that's the way the system works.
Part of your job is to be a judge of character. Tell me about your overall impression of Todd.
Just looking at his eyes, I didn't see any type of remorse or sympathy in them. They were hard. I don't know how to explain it. After a while in this business, you get to judge people by their actions and their looks, and you're not 100 percent right, but usually it's a good thing to go on, because you've interviewed so many people in your life, and to me he was being untruthful and trying to make himself look good in a bad situation.
... From the very time I sat and talked to him, I just I knew he wasn't being honest with me. I could just feel it, and I was going to prove it with evidence, and that's what we did. ...
You said Todd didn't show any remorse until a certain point. Can you tell me what that point was?
Todd didn't show any remorse in the interview until I actually showed him the pictures of his children in the house. And at that time, I think he finally faced what he had done. The impact had finally hit him of what he had actually done, that he had taken the lives of three innocent girls, and at that time he started crying, but it didn't last long. If it was me and my children and they showed me pictures of my children burned up, I would fall apart. I wouldn't be able to talk; I wouldn't be able to communicate. And I think most other parents would be the same way, but not with him.
I don't think he was sad so much that he killed the kids as much as that it had come into light that he was a suspect in it. Maybe he didn't do such a good job of covering up his trail. But he just didn't act like a typical person. And in any other case, I probably would not have shown the family the pictures, but we were trying to find the correct thing that had happened; we were trying to find what actually happened. ... But it's them three girls I'm thinking about. It's not his feelings. ...
So you were hoping at that point that you might actually get a confession?
Yes. I was hoping, but it didn't happen. The reason why ... I showed him the pictures is I wanted to shock him, to show him what he had done and hoping that he had some little piece of conscience or remorse in him that would overtake him and admit to what he had done, to finally come to the terms that he had done this. But he never faltered. He cried a few minutes, and then he was back to himself telling a story.
I feel like the man had no conscience. I don't think he had sympathy or love for anybody, to be honest. There's no reason or rhyme a lot of times for what people do except, in my opinion, [they] are just mean. I've met mean people in my life, and I think he's one of them. And to the day I die, I will always think that justice was served. I have no doubts in my mind. ...
Todd's stepmother, Eugenia Willingham, had a very different perspective, along with others who believed Todd couldn't hurt a flea. How do you explain the two very different Todds that people saw?
To start with, with the mother, you've got the motherly instincts. A mother don't want to believe that her child could do that. It's just a terrible thing. And a mom will, most of the time, love their kids no matter what, and they are going to take up for them no matter what. Even if she knew he done it, she probably wouldn't admit it herself, because that's jut a terrible thing to realize your flesh and blood would do something like this.
The other people didn't see him probably on a daily basis, especially his family, because he lived away from home. Stacy even admitted that he abused her and beat on her, and she stayed hoping that it would change, but it never did. She would tell lies to everybody. One time she had a big black eye, and she said she went up and told the family that the baby had bumped her with her head, when actually he had poked her in the eye. So they didn't get the whole picture, and they only wanted to believe what they wanted to believe.
Other people in the neighborhood, they saw him at his worst, not on his best behavior. What I gathered through the investigation, he was a ladies' man. He was pleasing to the ladies; he was not a bad-looking guy, and he hung out in the bars and stuff. The way I understand [it], he had a couple of affairs when he was married, so the ladies might tend to favor him in situations like that, not want to think the worst, which is the reason why I think maybe they stood up for him.
[Another perspective that really contradicts this image is the probation officer you may have talked to, who said that yes, as a child Willingham got himself into some trouble -- he was a glue huffer, broke into cars -- but those were not violent crimes. What about the people who say that they did not see the pattern you're talking about?]
True, but he was a younger age at that time. He was a juvenile. Now he's a grown man. His drug use has increased. His violence level has increased as he got older. And they didn't see him in his later years. They only can judge by what they saw at the time. He has a personality that can win you over if you're not careful. He can be very likable to the average person if you don't know what to look for. And I think that's what it was.
He was probably a likable kid, and that's why probably in his younger days I was told by the juvenile detectives that he had a gang, and he would recruit younger kids that he could intimidate, that he would send out to do the burglaries and bring the loot back to him, and then he would pay them off in drugs. So he was a ring leader. He's been a conniver all along. He's just one of those who has a personality that can get away with it. He put out a front, and that's what a lot of them were looking at, but I think ... as he got older, his true nature come out, just like his half-brother's and stuff. They all had a streak of violence in them.
What's your response to the people who say, is it remotely possible that this is just an enormous loser who couldn't hold a job, had off-and-on drug problems, and couldn't really keep it together with his wife, but maybe he was just literally in the wrong place at the wrong time?
He's a loser because he wanted to be. He put himself in those positions. He took the drugs. He's the one that didn't want to work. He's the one that wanted to hang out in the bars or whatever. That's his decision that he made on his own. So if anybody wants to say that he's a loser, I would say it's because he made himself one. That's the life he led.
His wife went out and worked, and he stayed home. He had to sleep it off. ... He liked the party life, and work really didn't fit in with his party life, and I think raising children didn't fit in with his party life. But I feel no remorse for him because he lived his own life. And nowadays, modern times, there's a lot of help if you want it. If you want to change, you can go and find help. It's out there. All you've got to do is go get it, and he made no effort. He's just what he was. And sometimes we run across those people. It's just I guess the way God made him, I don't know.
Gerald Hurst, the arson investigator, told me, "The worst thing to be in an arson case is a survivor of a fire where someone else dies"; that you can't win. Either way you have to live being a survivor, and no matter what, some people are going to think you did it.
That's for a lot of crimes. Yeah, I can understand that. If you're accused of theft, then there's some people who, even though there's proof you didn't do it, will always think that you're a thief. Child molesting, if you're accused of molesting children and come to find out you didn't do it, it don't matter; the stigma is still attached to you. And it's not right, but that's just society. It happens. And it's hard on somebody that has to live through that, I'm sure.
It's been so many years since the investigation, and the advancements in arson investigation have increased. Earlier you said Fogg had done the best he could.
That he did. As time goes on, techniques get better, and I wish that we had had them at that time, because I think we could have proved our case even better with scientific evidence. But at the time, we had what we had. It's the same stuff that every other fire department had in the nation, the same training. The same evidence would have been gathered. I think he did a very thorough job. And science is a good thing. It just makes our job easier. But I think with the evidence that we had, it was enough to prove that he committed the arson, that he killed his kids. It was enough to convince the jury; it was enough to convince the upper courts and the governor [Rick Perry].
Have you looked at that binary report [PDF] that the Texas [Forensic Science] Commission just came out with?
I haven't looked at it. ... I followed some of the stuff in the news. But the news had an agenda. Like I said, they wanted to prove a point [about] the death penalty. ... I'm not going there. That's not my job. My job as an investigator is to find the facts, and if it's sufficient facts to present them to the district attorney, and that's what we did.
This Monday-morning quarterbacking and stuff is easy to do after the fact. But like I always said, they weren't there to see it in person. ...
They haven't disproven your science, but they have proven their science.
Yes. They haven't told us what caused the fire. If it wasn't arson, what was it? If the pictures can say it's not arson, then the pictures should tell you what did start it, if they are that good at interpreting the pictures, in my opinion.
What is your opinion on Doug Fogg's skills as a fire investigator?
I found him to be very good, very thorough. He had been in the business a long time, seen a lot of fires. Got his training and was instructed at the fire academy here. He has a broad working knowledge of fire investigations, ... so he knows his business. Alongside him there was also the state fire marshal, Mr. Vasquez, who was very skilled, very trained and had a lot of experience, so them together was a very competent team, in my opinion. After I went to school, what they were saying made sense. I could see what they were talking about, and then I realized, so they were right on with what the training was.
Have you ever seen him be wrong about the cause of the fire?
I haven't, but I haven't worked that many fires with him. I worked a few going to school, but usually if there's no crime involved or there's no person involved, then we don't get involved. If there's a straight arson, usually the fire marshal will handle that. So a lot of times on some of these cases I wouldn't even find out what happened until they filed a case, so I don't know how the investigation went, and I don't know how many he's been wrong on or not. I'm sure he's missed something; everybody misses something. That's just the way it is.
[How were you trained to investigate arson?]
I was sent to arson investigators' school to learn how to investigate fires, the cause and origin of fires. It's the same training that, as far as I know, is nationally taught. I did three weeks of classroom and situation training out there where they'd take us, have burnt buildings we'd look at and stuff to learn to apply the knowledge we had. And when I got back, then I'd team with the fire marshal and assistants he followed, and [I] worked on several fires with him to advance my training to actually get field training of what I was taught in the classroom.
We did a major jewelry store fire; we did several residential fires -- some arson, some accidental -- and just advanced my training up until the time I was moved out of the detective division, out of the patrol division. ...
And is there more forensic science now in your training than there was then?
Oh, yes. I'm quite sure there's a lot more.. ...
For example, what would be the difference between what you learned and what Doug Fogg learned?
... We learned how to preserve evidence better, how to take evidence better without the possibility of contaminating a scene, where in the old days they might use a chain saw to cut out a section of the floor, where nowadays you use an electric saw, because a chain saw has accelerants in it, gasoline and stuff. That way, using an electric saw, you can't say [there's] the possibility that the gas leaked out of the chain saw, things like that.
The scientific equipment and stuff is better, I'm sure. The lab equipment and stuff is probably a lot better than it used to be in this. So you learn as you go, because no two fires are the same. And through the years, they've just learned to be better at it. ...
What do you think the chances are that you are wrong?
I don't think I'm wrong. I'm firm believing that justice was served in this case. I can't think of anything we haven't covered. I think we covered it pretty well. I think a crime was committed, and a person was punished for that crime.