"I HAD BEEN SCHEDULED TO SIT DOWN WITH THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER THE NEXT DAY FOR A DEPOSITION (FLORIDA IS ONE OF THE FEW STATES WHERE ALL WITNESSES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS CAN BE QUESTIONED UNDER OATH BEFORE TRIAL). BUT I TOLD THE PROSECUTORS, WHO HAD WITNESSED THE TEST FIRE, THAT BASED ON THE TEST RESULTS, I WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO STATE THAT I THOUGHT THE FIRE WAS INTENTIONALLY SET. I HAD COME WITHIN 24 HOURS OF GIVING TESTIMONY THAT COULD WELL HAVE SENT AN INNOCENT PERSON TO FLORIDA'S ELECTRIC CHAIR. NEEDLESS TO SAY, I WAS CHASTENED BY THE EXPERIENCE. MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE WAS NEVER THE SAME AGAIN."
JOHN LENTINI;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The vulnerability of arson "science" to wrongful convictions with possible deadly results - as illustrated by the Cameron Todd Willingham case and the recently broadcast ABC series - is powerfully illustrated by the following personal account of a "life-changing experience" by fire investigator John Lentini.
Harold Levy;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"John Lentini, one of the nation's leading arson experts, had a life-changing experience in arson fire investigations," the ABC News May 6, 2010 20/20 story begons, under the heading, "Fire Expert: How I Nearly an Sent an Innocent Man to the Electric Chair: John Lentini Explains How His View of Arson Investigation Changed Forever."
"Twenty years ago, he was convinced that a man named Gerald Lewis had killed his pregnant wife and four children by setting fire to their home in Jacksonville, Florida," the story continues.
"Before he testified for the prosecution, Lentini had a chance to test Lewis' claim that the blaze began by accident when his couch caught on fire. It changed his view of arson investigations forever. Here is his own description of what happened, under the heading, "My Lime Street Epiphany."
When I was first contacted by Duvall County, Florida prosecutors, it was with a request to review the chemical analysis of fire debris in a multiple fatality fire. The state's chemist said he had detected gasoline in some critical fire debris samples. When I reviewed the data, however, I did not see the gasoline, so I sent it to 10 colleagues, who also disagreed with the gasoline determination.
I was next asked to review the fire scene inspection report prepared by a fire investigator in the Jacksonville Fire Department. I thought his report looked pretty reasonable. I thought that he had developed a sustainable determination that the fire was intentionally set using flammable liquids. Because of the lack of a credible laboratory report, however, the prosecution team decided it needed something more.
The "something more" was a test fire conducted in a house two doors down with the same floor plan, which we outfitted with the same furnishings as the house where the people died. The two scientists (myself and another well-known fire scientist) leading the experiment both believed that flashover, a transition point at which heat causes almost everything in a room to catch fire, might be achieved in 15 or 20 minutes. Instead, it took just over four minutes. This added much credibility to the defendant's version of events.
I had been scheduled to sit down with the defendant's lawyer the next day for a deposition (Florida is one of the few states where all witnesses in criminal proceedings can be questioned under oath before trial). But I told the prosecutors, who had witnessed the test fire, that based on the test results, I was no longer able to state that I thought the fire was intentionally set. I had come within 24 hours of giving testimony that could well have sent an innocent person to Florida's electric chair. Needless to say, I was chastened by the experience. My professional life was never the same again.
Although the prosecutors were relieved to have avoided bringing a questionable case to trial, I was derided and demeaned by many fire investigators who would have gone forward with the case even with the test results we had, based on their visual observation of the "pour patterns" on the floor.
I made a videotape of the Lime Street fire investigation and showed it to some colleagues at the next meeting of the International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI). One of those present, IAAI President David Smith, told me he had a similar case in Arizona and asked if I would be interested in reviewing the case for the court. I saw the same kind of flawed reasoning used to determine arson in that case as well. Of course, this got me deeper in trouble with the proponents of "traditional" fire-cause determination, but I held my ground.
After this experience, I counted only those investigators favoring a scientific approach to fires among my friends, but over the years that cadre has grown, while the number of proponents of the old way of doing things has shrunk. The great scientist Max Planck may have said it best: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." This quotation is sometimes paraphrased more succinctly: "Science advances one funeral at a time.""
The story can be found at:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/john-lentinis-fire-arson-investigation/story?id=10562869
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
