-
Posts filed under category: Science of Arson
Does John Bradley Get It?
I've been pulled away from the blog this week to finish a feature story about the recent controversy over arson convictions. (The story will be out in two weeks.)
But I wanted to highlight Rick Casey's excellent column in today's Houston Chronicle about the spat between John Bradley and Sam Bassett over the Forensic Science Commission.
Bassett was, until recently, head of the commission. Gov. Rick Perry replaced him with Bradley, the hard-line Williamson County prosecutor who appears to be slow-walking the commission's investigation into the controversial execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. (Willingham, of course, may well have been innocent.)
The two have been sniping at each other since Bradley appeared before a legislative committee earlier this week and criticized the commission's approach under Bassett.
Casey nails exactly what's at issue here:
Bradley is speaking like a prosecutor. He assumes that the commission's job is to decide whether the fire marshals, laboratory technicians, fingerprint experts and others engaged in solving crimes were negligent or incompetent.....
Here's the most important thing. The prosecutorial culture wants to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the people involved did something wrong.
The scientific culture wants to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether everything was done right. That's why findings are published, peer-reviewed, and subject to never-ending scrutiny.
The Commission actually voted not to attempt to define the terms “professional negligence” and “misconduct” at its February 2008 meeting in Dallas. The minutes show agreement that it was “unnecessary since we have no rule making and/or enforcement authority under the present statutory structure.”
In other words, their job as scientists wasn't to sanction the investigators, but to judge the quality of the science. That is the way scientists learn how to do things better.
The sole purpose of the findings, however embarrassing for the investigators, would be to improve future practices.
That's right on. As I've written before, Willingham is gone. His case is irrevocably closed. But we can use the lessons from Willingham's case to help innocent people still in prison on bogus arson convictions and to help prevent future wrongful convictions.
Bradley seems in no rush, though.
Even under the commission's original timeline for the Willingham investigation, a final report wouldn't have been ready until winter or spring of 2010 -- six years after the execution and four years after the commission first received a request to examine the case.
With Bradley in charge, it could be a year (or several years) before we see conclusions on the Willingham case.
And only the Legislature seems positioned to speed up that timeline.
Posted under: Science of ArsonThe Willingham Hearing
The small hearing room in the Capitol basement was packed this morning to see the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice take on the infamous Cameron Todd Willingham case.
Judging from the crowd, the hearing promised excellent political theater. Kinky Friedman was there (accompanied, as always, by sidekick Little Jewford), so was Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck, a number of Texas House members, Cory Session (the brother of the late Tim Cole), and, if I'm not mistaken, just about every reporter and blogger in town.
They had all come to hear the senators grill John Bradley, the prosecutor who Gov. Rick Perry appointed to lead the Forensic Science Commission. Critics have accused Perry of installing Bradley to stall or undermine the commission's investigation of Willingham, a likely innocent man executed in 2004 for murder by arson. Many forensic experts now believe the fire was accidental, not arson, and that Willingham was convicted by flawed forensics. (Background on Forensic Science Commission controversy here; and more on Willingham's case here.)
Once the hearing began, however, there were few theatrics. In fact, the Willingham case was mentioned only in passing (save for one speech by Sen. Dan Patrick).
Senators threw a few politically tinged questions at Bradley, who responded with combative answers, but the hearing largely focused on the most important aspect of this controversy: the forensic science of arson and how many innocent Texans may have been convicted by junk arson science.
No one really knows how many innocent people may be sitting in Texas prisons on faulty arson convictions. I've been writing a series on the topic this year, and have unearthed three cases of apparently wrongful arson convictions (Curtis Severns, Ed Graf, and Alfredo Guardiola).
Bradley, the hard-line Williamson County prosecutor, opened the hearing by outlining his vision for the Forensic Science Commission in the future. He wants to write rules and definitions for the commission and create more structure. He wants to work with the Office of Court Administration to come up with definitions for the commission.
He steadfastly refused to comment -- in both the hearing and a gathering with reporters afterward -- on the Willingham case or when the commission would finish the stalled investigation. He did say the commission would meet again in January. That was perhaps the biggest nugget of news to emerge from the morning's events.
(In a press conference after the hearing, Scheck and Sen. Rodney Ellis suggested that some of Bradley's ideas amounted to stall tactics. "How long can it really take to get a definition of 'negligence' from the Office of Court Administration?" Scheck said. "We hope Chairman Bradley moves forward in a timely way....There are potentially people in prison who shouldn't be there based on this kind of unreliable forensic science.")
Indeed, that's the real issue here. During the hearing, Ellis pointed out that more than 740 Texans are serving prison sentences for arson. In that sense, the work for the Forensic Science Commission is much larger than Willingham.
"We want to make sure we got it right," Ellis said. He then suggested that there was the appearance of politically motivated delays in the Willingham investigation.
Bradley shot back by questioning Ellis' role on the board of the Innocence Project, which brought the Willingham case to the commission. "I have to wonder if you're here on behalf of the New York nonprofit who filed the complaint," he said. Later, Rep. Tommy Merritt asked if Bradley had similar credibility concerns about other lawmakers on the dais, and Bradley quickly cut him down. "I don't even know your name," he said.
But the discussion kept coming back to fire science.
I've been writing for months that the focus of the Willingham investigation should be on the arson forensics. The prospect that Texas might admit executing an innocent man is alluring. But the real value of the Willingham case will be drawing attention to the kind of disproved arson evidence that has sent dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of innocent people to prison.
As Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa put it to Bradley late in the hearing, "Just focus on the arson techniques that were used."
Posted under: Science of ArsonThe Supposed Willingham Confession
On Sunday, Stacy Kuykendall -- the ex-wife of Cameron Todd Willingham -- gave her first public statement in years. She provided a statement to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in which she reiterated that, when she met with Willingham on death row just before his 2004 execution, he confessed to starting the 1991 fire that killed their three daughters.
(If you don't know the details of Willingham's case, click here.)
The supposed confession is highly problematic. Kuykendall's story keeps changing. I sympathize with Kuykendall. She experienced unspeakable tragedy. But it's hard to trust what she's saying now.
If we had a recording of Willingham confessing, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, only two people know what was said that day. One of them is dead. The other keeps changing her account.
So my advice is this: ignore the whole damn episode.
The notion of a death row confession is enticing. But there are no answers here. It's a bottomless hole.
If you're truly interested in trying to figure this out, I wrote about the problems with the supposed confession here. David Grann at the New Yorker has an even more detailed breakdown.
(Grits is also on point, as is Kuffner.)
But it's a waste of time. Dwelling on the validity of the confession will drive you insane, and it will amount to nothing.
Like I said, ignore it.
Focus instead on the forensics of the case. The flawed arson evidence that convicted Willingham is the heart of the matter.
Some media outlets are blessedly turning their focus to the forensics. I mentioned yesterday an excellent story in the Star-Telegram.
The Dallas Morning News also chimes in with a clear-eyed editorial.
We shouldn't be re-trying Willingham. The case is irrevocably closed.
But many other people likely were convicted on similarly flawed arson evidence. (I've found three of them in a series of stories on faulty arson convictions). We should learn what we can about how and why Willingham was convicted on such bad evidence and then look for innocent people still in jail on bogus arson convictions.
These are the people who can still be helped.
Posted under: Science of ArsonBack to the Science on Willingham
Kudos to Dave Montgomery of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. His story today on the Cameron Todd Willingham case is one of the few recent media reports to focus on the most important aspect of this case: the forensic arson evidence.
I've been kvetching for a while that the political furor surrounding the Willingham case and the death penalty has obscured the forensics. (Here's a link to help our non-Yiddish-speaking readers understand that last sentence.) My previous posts -- which contain the aforementioned kvetching -- can be found here and here.
Montgomery provides detailed descriptions of why the evidence against Willingham was so flawed.
None of this is new, of course. You can find nearly all the pertinent forensic details in this report and this Chicago Tribune story -- both of which are five years old.
But if these facts are repeated again and again, perhaps the debate over Willingham might shift away from gubernatorial and death penalty politics, and toward the flawed forensic evidence that wrongly convicted dozens (maybe hundreds) of innocent people of arson.
Posted under: Science of Arson« Older PostsAs Burka Goes, So Goes the State
Paul Burka at the Monthly wrote a post late yesterday about the governor's race and the controversial case of Cameron Todd Willingham.
(As you probably know, Willingham was a likely innocent man executed in 2004.)
Most of the post is standard political fare. But half way through, Burka writes this rather amazing sentence (italics are mine):
Perry’s tendency to pour gasoline on the fire — a poor metaphor, I realize, given the nature of the crime Willingham committed — keeps getting him into trouble.
When I first read this, I assumed -- given that the forensic evidence in the case has been debunked, and the leading fire experts in the country believe the fire was accidental -- that Burka had simply slipped up and used poor wording (which we've all done too many times.)
But when he was called out in the comments section, Burka stood his ground about Willingham:
Willingham was convicted of capital murder for committing arson. There is clearly room for doubt, but the record says that he committed arson.
I'm sorry, Paul, but this is intellectual cowardice.
It not only parrots Gov. Rick Perry's argument about Willingham, but ignores the overwhelming evidence that there was never any arson in the first place (no arson, no crime).
Has Burka read the New Yorker story? Or the original Chicago Tribune story from five years ago (the headline of which is: "Man Executed on Disproved Forensics")?
There's a reason this has become a media firestorm, and it's not because of gripes from anti-death penalty activists.
Unfortunately this case has become politicized, as Grits rightly noted a few weeks ago. It's unfortunate that the most important part of the Willingham case -- the problems with forensic arson evidence -- is getting lost amid the screams of Culture Warriors on both sides. I suspect Burka now views the Willingham case that way -- as a "left" and "right" issue. So he chooses to sidestep it by hiding behind the "record." Willingham was convicted, so that means he did it.
Burka seems to think that just because someone is convicted of a crime, that means they committed the crime.
That simply isn't the case. The majority of people convicted in Texas are probably guilty as sin. But there are, sadly, quite a few people who have been wrongly convicted.
If Paul Burka doubts that, he should call any of the nearly two dozen convicts exonerated by DNA evidence in Dallas County alone. Or he should talk to Tim Cole's family.
Again, this is intellectual cowardice, and it reveals the kind of thinking that has resisted reforms to the criminal justice system.
Of course, there is no DNA in the Willingham case. But the flawed forensic evidence is nearly as good. The Willingham case should show us that our criminal justice system is making too many mistakes, that reforms are needed. Instead it's become the same tired debate about the death penalty, and that's a shame.
Because I suspect that a lot of people in Texas think just as Burka does on this issue. You hear it from people all the time: "Well, he was convicted in a court of law."
Until we change that mindset, until more Texans realize that some innocent people are convicted, I doubt we will ever fix the flaws in the system.
Posted under: Science of Arson -
Recent Posts
-
The Contrarian Returns
-
Does John Bradley Get It?
-
The Willingham Hearing
-
The Fort Hood Tragedy
-
Why You Can’t Blame TMA for Endorsing Perry
-
Women More Likely to Be Uninsured
-
Dept. of Corrections
-
Manslaughter at a State School
-
Heath Care Reform Would Benefit Texas
-
The Supposed Willingham Confession
-
Back to the Science on Willingham
-
Public Option Lives
-
How the Health Care System Screws Us
-
As Burka Goes, So Goes the State
-
Public Option Ain’t Dead Just Yet
Archive
Categories
-
The Contrarian Returns
Subscribe to this feed via RSS
