" 2. Draft recommendations to the Texas Forensic Science Commission appear to have reached a foregone conclusion of no negligence by arson investigators in the Willingham case. Will the final report go beyond this finding?
3. The law says the commission's final report on a negligence case must address "corrective action required by the laboratory, facility or entity" involved. Is the commission obligated to assess whether the State Fire Marshal's Office has upgraded standards?
4. The recommendations clear Willingham investigators of negligence because they used forensic techniques accepted at the time. Yet the commission's paid expert said investigators didn't meet even that standard. How do you square the two?
5. Experts say hundreds of arson defendants have been convicted based on similarly outmoded standards. How should the commission or state fire marshal address that claim?...
"Finally, I should plead guilty to Mr. Bradley's complaint about my questions. They weren't meant to be nice. Accusatory, yes. But that's my role, and this Willingham business isn't about niceties.""
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our newspaper has a Sunday feature in the Points section called Point Person. It's a question-and-answer session with a person in the news or a person with an interesting perspective on life or current events," Dallas Morning News Editorial Writer Rodger Jones writes in a column published earlier today under the heading, "Q&A rejected by John Bradley."
"This week my bosses asked me if I'd see about doing the Q&A with Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, who chairs the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The subject would be the commission's handling of the Cameron Todd Willingham case," the column continues.
"Bottom line: no dice.
I'm appending below 1) the questions I sent along, 2) Mr. Bradley's response, 3) my response to his response.
The questions:
1. Your handling of the Cameron Todd Willingham case has been faulted as heavy-handed and politically motivated. What do you say to your critics?
2. Draft recommendations to the Texas Forensic Science Commission appear to have reached a foregone conclusion of no negligence by arson investigators in the Willingham case. Will the final report go beyond this finding?
3. The law says the commission's final report on a negligence case must address "corrective action required by the laboratory, facility or entity" involved. Is the commission obligated to assess whether the State Fire Marshal's Office has upgraded standards?
4. The recommendations clear Willingham investigators of negligence because they used forensic techniques accepted at the time. Yet the commission's paid expert said investigators didn't meet even that standard. How do you square the two?
5. Experts say hundreds of arson defendants have been convicted based on similarly outmoded standards. How should the commission or state fire marshal address that claim?
6. Why did the committee of four commissioners working on the Willingham case meet in private? Shouldn't the public be aware of factors that members weighed in recommending no negligence?
7. Will the committee draft the final report in public?
8. What is your opinion of the role of Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project of New York in the Willingham case?
Bradley's reponse, via email, to the questions and interview request:
The questions have the distinctive vocabulary of a New York lawyer, filled with the sort of leading statements that would cause any Texas judge to sustain an objection on the grounds of "leading" and "propaganda". Regardless, the Forensic Science Commission has unanimously adopted policies and procedures that state, "FSC members and employees shall avoid discussing the details of pending matters with the media, except upon final disposition of those matters."
My response to Mr. Bradley, though his commission office:
Please let him know that I am neither a lawyer nor from New York. I neither sought nor got help from Barry Scheck's group in formulating my questions. I asked a question specifically about Scheck because my boss wanted me to.
My interest in bill language is not confined to criminal justice issues. I try to read the fine print so I can minimize the number of really dumb or naive questions I ask.
I realize the commission intends to confine its attention to "accredited," DPS-recognized facilities and entities that do forensic work. I read the memo. My questions about a more expansive role stem from 1) statements from lawmakers who support a more expansive interpretation, and 2) the fact that the commission undertook the Willingham case, which involves no DPS-accredited lab.
Again, thank you for your time.
The memo in question was released two weeks ago by commission staff and has to do with limits on its jurisdiction. It suggests that the law that created the commission gave it limited authority.
Still, the commission's own draft recommendations last week conceded that they are in new territory in the Willingham case and should carry forth and finish the job, as it were:
While the panel recognizes that jurisdictional problems remain to be resolved, they also recognize that the FSC has previously voted to accept the complaint and conducted an investigation through a paid consultant. In addition, the panel recognizes there is great public interest in the case. So, while the jurisdictional issues (See 7.12.2010 Memorandum on the Jurisdiction of the FSC) need to be addressed and applied more clearly in future cases, the panel nonetheless makes the following recommendations for disposition of the complaint:
Relying upon the consultant's report as to the standard of practice in existence at the time of the arson investigation and trial, the panel unanimously believes that the arson experts did not commit professional negligence or misconduct. The expert simply applied the standard of practice as it existed at the time of the investigation and trial (See Beyler Report Pg. 1). We do recognize that a new standard of practice has since evolved and been adopted for application in Texas. However, that standard was not yet adopted for practice at the time of the arson investigation and trial.
So my questions remain, I think, pertinent ones. If the commission has undertaken the Willingham case, should it not finish the job in as complete and comprehensive a manner as possible?
If my questions were dumb despite my best efforts, I'd love to know.
Finally, I should plead guilty to Mr. Bradley's complaint about my questions. They weren't meant to be nice. Accusatory, yes. But that's my role, and this Willingham business isn't about niceties."
The article can be found at:
http://deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/07/qa-rejected-by-john-bradley.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; hlevy15@gmail.com;