"Innocence Project co-director Barry Scheck made three points in his 14-page letter:
The State Fire Marshal’s Office was negligent when it failed to inform the criminal justice system that some of its earlier investigations were unreliable, particularly after the agency adopted National Fire Protection Association Code 921 as the only scientifically acceptable means of analyzing fires.
The arson investigators who testified at Willingham’s trial were professionally negligent. “While these people may have been but simple fire investigators, i.e. not scientists, they still had a duty to understand if their methods for ascertaining arson were understood by their profession to be unreliable,” the letter said.
Testimony from the state fire marshal was inappropriate, going beyond a scientific assessment of the fire."
REPORTER CHUCK LINDELL: THE STATESMAN;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Legendary "Innocence" lawyer Barry Scheck asked participants at a conference of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers held in Toronto in August, 2010, how Willingham, who had lost his family to the fire, must have felt to hear the horrific allegations made against him on the basis of the bogus evidence, "and nobody pays any attention to it as he gets executed." "It's the Dreyfus Affair, and you all know what that is," Scheck continued. "It's the Dreyfus AffaIr of the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Innocence Project filed the original complaint that prompted the Texas Forensic Science Commission to investigate whether Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004 based on faulty finding of arson," the story by reporter Chuck Lindell published earlier today in the Statesman under the heading, "Innocence Project comments on Willingham case," begins.
"Today, the Innocence Project sent a letter to the commission arguing for an expanded investigation into the culpability of the State Fire Marshal’s Office in the case. An agency investigator, relying on investigative techniques now known to be based on bad science, testified that Willingham intentionally set the fire that killed his three young daughters in his Corsicana home," the story continues.
"A subcommittee of the Forensic Science Commission announced last month that it has reached a preliminary finding that the fire marshal — and a Corsicana fire investigator who reached the same arson conclusion — did not engage in professional negligence or misconduct. Both investigators were relying on beliefs and practices that were commonly held when they probed the Willingham fire in 1991, commissioners said.
Before reaching a final conclusion, the commission solicited additional information, prompting today’s letter from the Innocence Project.
The subcommittee plans to present its findings to the full commission at a specially called Sept. 17 meeting in Dallas.
Innocence Project co-director Barry Scheck made three points in his 14-page letter:
O: The State Fire Marshal’s Office was negligent when it failed to inform the criminal justice system that some of its earlier investigations were unreliable, particularly after the agency adopted National Fire Protection Association Code 921 as the only scientifically acceptable means of analyzing fires.
O: The arson investigators who testified at Willingham’s trial were professionally negligent. “While these people may have been but simple fire investigators, i.e. not scientists, they still had a duty to understand if their methods for ascertaining arson were understood by their profession to be unreliable,” the letter said.
O: Testimony from the state fire marshal was inappropriate, going beyond a scientific assessment of the fire.
“These allegations of negligence and/or misconduct call into question the reliability and validity of arson investigations and convictions — past, present and future — across Texas,” Scheck wrote.
The letter also was signed by Stephen Saloom, the Innocence Project’s policy director.
Austin lawyer Samuel Bassett, former chair of the Forensic Science Commission, has also urged the panel to provide an in-depth report on the use of flawed arson science in Texas.'
The story can be found at:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/investigative/entries/2010/08/20/innocence_project_comments_on.html?cxntfid=blogs_focal_point
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/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
