"THE PROBLEM IS OF COURSE THAT MOST PEOPLE WORKING FOR THE PROSECUTION DON’T REALLY WANT ANY TECHNIQUE INVESTIGATED TOO DEEPLY IN CASE PROBLEMS ARE FOUND. ONCE THAT HAPPENS THEN OTHER CONVICTIONS MIGHT BE CALLED INTO QUESTION, WHICH COULD THROW THE WHOLE SYSTEM INTO DISORDER, INCURRING ENORMOUS EXPENSE AND ALL THE OBVIOUS ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS. TO MY MIND, THAT’S NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON NOT TO DO IT. IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE SENT TO PRISON BASED, EVEN IN PART, ON SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS THEN THE SCIENCE MUST BE ROBUST AND RELIABLE (AS WELL AS OTHER LEGAL ISSUES SUCH AS RELEVANT AND REPEATABLE)".......
"THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT IF THE OVERALL OUTCOME OF THE US REVIEW AND THE WORK BEING CARRIED OUT TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES IDENTIFIES SOME REAL PROBLEMS, THE IMPLICATIONS COULD BE FELT THROUGHOUT COURT SYSTEMS WORLDWIDE – INCLUDING NEW ZEALAND."
DOCTOR ANNA SANDIFORD: FORENSIC REVIEW;
(According to her Web-sit "Forensic Science": Dr Anna Sandiford is a Forensic Science Consultant, Expert Witness and Company Director based in New Zealand. She has been been involved with forensic science since 1998 in both the UK and New Zealand and has assisted with cases throughout the UK, Channel Islands, Cayman Islands and New Zealand. Her areas of forensic expertise include alcohol, drugs, drug driving, drug traces, footwear/sockprints, glass and pollen (palynology). She is one of a handful of forensic pollen experts worldwide and is involved with an international team that provides environmental forensic services.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004), born in Carter County, Oklahoma, was sentenced to death by the state of Texas for murdering his three daughters—two year old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and one year old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham— by setting his house on fire. The fire occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. Lighter fluid was kept on the front porch of Willingham’s house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. It was alleged this fluid was deliberately poured to start the fire and that Willingham chose this entrance way so as to impede rescue attempts. The prosecution also used other arson theories that have since been brought into question. In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant claimed Willingham confessed that he set the fire to hide his wife's physical abuse of the girls, although the girls showed no other injuries besides those caused by the fire. Neighbors also testified that Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children. They allege he "crouched down" in his front yard and watched the house burn for a period of time without attempting to enter the home or go to neighbors for help or request they call firefighters. He claimed that he tried to go back into the house but it was "too hot". As firefighters arrived, however, he rushed towards the garage and pushed his car away from the burning building, requesting firefighters do the same rather than put out the fire. After the fire, Willingham showed no emotion at the death of his children and spent the next day sorting through the debris, laughing and playing music. He expressed anger after finding his dartboard burned in the fire. Firefighters and other witnesses found him suspicious of how he reacted during and after the fire. Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. After his conviction, he and his wife divorced. She later stated that she believed that Willingham was guilty. Prosecutors alleged this was part of a pattern of behavior intended to rid himself of his children. Willingham had a history of committing crimes, including burglary, grand larceny and car theft. There was also an incident when he beat his pregnant wife over the stomach with a telephone to induce a miscarriage. When asked if he had a final statement, Willingham said: "Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby." However, his final words were directed at his ex-wife, Stacy Willingham. He turned to her and said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch" several times while attempting to extend his middle finger in an obscene gesture. His ex-wife did not show any reaction to this. He was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Subsequent to that date, persistent questions have been raised as to the accuracy of the forensic evidence used in the conviction, specifically, whether it can be proven that an accelerant (such as the lighter fluid mentioned above) was used to start the fatal fire. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Two days before the Forensic Science Commission was to question Beyler in a public forum, the governor replaced its chairman and two other members whose terms were up. That forced the commission to delay the hearing so new members could read up on the case, and no new date has been set. Perry has since replaced a third member of the commission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"U.S. academics at UCLA are being granted funds to consider error rates in latent fingerprint evidence," the post, published on February 12, 2010, under the heading "Forensic science: validation and incompetence," begins.
"Some would ask whether or not this sort of exercise should have been completed loooong ago," the post continues.
"As with any other area of applied science, regular review should be undertaken. Unfortunately, this is not something that necessarily occurs in forensic science, partly because some agencies aren’t keen on their databases being examined (see Crime DNA databases should be independently examined). Last year, the United States National Academy of Sciences issued a damning report on the state of forensic science in U.S. crime laboratories. The report basically stated that the accuracy and reliability of practically all forensic science methods, ranging from glass to fingerprints, had not been established adequately through rigorous scientific scrutiny. At the end of this month (Feb 2010), the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) is holding its annual scientific meeting, which is tellingly entitled, “Putting Our Forensic House in Order: Determining Validation and Expelling Incompetence.” So, not only is forensic science in the States being shaken upside down until the grotty bits drop out of its pockets, someone somewhere is getting paid to do the work that should have been done long ago, on an ongoing basis. Let’s hope one of the resolutions that arises from the AAFS meeting is that forensic science techniques should be reviewed regularly. The problem is of course that most people working for the prosecution don’t really want any technique investigated too deeply in case problems are found. Once that happens then other convictions might be called into question, which could throw the whole system into disorder, incurring enormous expense and all the obvious associated problems. To my mind, that’s not a good enough reason not to do it. If people are going to be sent to prison based, even in part, on scientific findings then the science must be robust and reliable (as well as other legal issues such as relevant and repeatable). If science is reviewed regularly and the law takes that into account then it should be possible to work out a system whereby the courts can be sure that the science is up-to-date, which in turn adds to the strength of science in court. It also might present the current stink that’s going on in Texas over the inadequate forensic science presented in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham (Wikipedia link), who was executed for allegedly killing his children in a house fire he was supposed to have set. The science has since been shown to have been wrong. The other thing to remember is that if the overall outcome of the US review and the work being carried out to address those issues identifies some real problems, the implications could be felt throughout court systems worldwide – including New Zealand.
The post can be found at:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/forensic-scientist/tag/cameron-todd-willingham/
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
