"So the question with regard to the Willingham case isn't whether Mr. Vasquez acted negligently or in bad faith when conducting his investigation or rendering his opinion; the question is whether the his opinion was based on a valid scientific theory. And that is what the Texas Forensic Science Commission needs to focus on instead of covering up the truth in order to keep Rick Perry from having to get a real job."
PAUL B. KENNEDY; THE DEFENCE RESTS; (This Blog is described as, "the musings, ramblings, rantings and observations of Houston DWI Attorney Paul B. Kennedy on DWI defense, general criminal defense, philosophy and whatever else tickles his fancy.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yesterday I wrote about the back-door machinations over atthe Texas Forensic Science Commission and an update from their meeting in Houston," the post published earlier today on "For the Defence" begins, under the heading, "Flawed science."
"The Houston Chronicle noted that a committee made up of members of the commission found that the "experts" who testified that Cameron Willingham set the fire that killed his children weren't negligent and did not exhibit any misconduct during their investigation or testimony in the case," the post continues.
"Now that's all well and good, but the issue isn't whether Deputy State Fire Marshall Manual Vasquez was negligent in his investigation or cooked the books -- the issue is whether the opinions to which Mr. Vasquez testified to at Mr. Willingham's trial were based on good science.
Texas Rule of Evidence 702 states that:
"If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."
Rule 104 makes the judge the so-called gatekeeper when it comes to scientific evidence at trial. The judge makes this determination based on a set of factors laid out in Kelly v. State, 824 SW2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Scientific evidence is admissible if (1) the underlying theory is valid, (2) the technique applying the theory is valid and (3) the technique was applied properly on the time in question.
So the question with regard to the Willingham case isn't whether Mr. Vasquez acted negligently or in bad faith when conducting his investigation or rendering his opinion; the question is whether the his opinion was based on a valid scientific theory. And that is what the Texas Forensic Science Commission needs to focus on instead of covering up the truth in order to keep Rick Perry from having to get a real job.
And this is what Mr. John Bradley doesn't understand. To Mr. Bradley the question of whether scientific evidence is admissible comes down to whether or not the evidence is beneficial to the state's case, not whether the evidence is based on solid science."
The post can be found at:
http://kennedy-law.blogspot.com/2010/07/flawed-science.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-feature-cases-issues-and.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
