"In fact, there was a federal case in the 1990s in which the International Association of Arson Investigators argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that arson experts shouldn't be subject to what is called a "Daubert" test before being allowed to testify in federal court.
That test requires that a judge act as a "gatekeeper" on expert testimony. The judge is to exclude scientific testimony if it doesn't pass certain tests, including whether it is based on solid scientific methodology.
The IAAI actually argued that members shouldn't be subject to that test because what they do is "less scientific" than what is required under "Daubert."
But the reality is that when arson experts testify to juries, the juries believe that their conclusions are based on real science, not lesser science."
RICK CASEY; THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 were 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. Luke Power's music video "Texas Death Row Blues," can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/09/cameron-todd-willingham-texas-death-row_02.html
For an important critique of the devastating state of arson investigation in America with particular reference to the Willingham and Willis cases, go to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/01/fire-investigation-great-read-veteran.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The biggest mystery concerning the Texas Forensic Commission may be whether Todd Willingham actually set the 1991 house fire that killed his three young daughters and for which he was executed," the Houston Inquiry story by Rick Casey published on January 25, 2011 under the heading, "Are arson probes 'lesser science'?," begins.
"But the second-biggest mystery is what happened behind closed doors at the commission's meeting last Friday in Austin," the story continues.
"Just two weeks after finally hearing from nationally respected fire scientists who ripped testimony given in Willingham's trial by arson investigators from Corsicana and the State Fire Marshal's Office, commissioners appeared ready to issue their conclusions.
No scientist was brought forth to defend the arson investigations and testimony.
But after nearly an hour behind closed doors, they voted unanimously to seek an attorney general's decision on whether they had jurisdiction in the case.
What made the decision extraordinary is that the commission from the beginning has been guided by Barbara Dean, a senior member of the attorney general's staff who faithfully attended commission meetings and regularly offered legal opinions.
Immediate speculation arose that Chairman John Bradley, the Williamson County district attorney who delayed the testimony of the scientists for more than a year and has doggedly tried to restrict the scope of the body, was again putting on the brakes.
But the seven scientists on the nine-member body have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected Bradley's strictures. The unanimity of the vote suggests that a serious legal issue was raised in the secret session.
Fighting against science
My guess is that the issue was brought by either the city of Corsicana or the fire marshal's office, or both.
If I'm right, we are watching an ugly spectacle of two law enforcement agencies, unable to marshal science on their side, aggressively fighting against science with lawyers.
It is, sad to say, part of a long-standing cultural tension between arson investigators and scientists.
In fact, there was a federal case in the 1990s in which the International Association of Arson Investigators argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that arson experts shouldn't be subject to what is called a "Daubert" test before being allowed to testify in federal court.
That test requires that a judge act as a "gatekeeper" on expert testimony. The judge is to exclude scientific testimony if it doesn't pass certain tests, including whether it is based on solid scientific methodology.
The IAAI actually argued that members shouldn't be subject to that test because what they do is "less scientific" than what is required under "Daubert."
But the reality is that when arson experts testify to juries, the juries believe that their conclusions are based on real science, not lesser science.
Some not up to speed
What's more, the past 20 years have brought considerable scientific advancement to the arson field, though many arson investigators clearly haven't caught up. They're not alone.
The Texas Forensic Science Commission was formed because the Houston Crime Lab and other scandals repeatedly have shown that science presented in Texas criminal courtrooms is entirely too often a lesser science.
There is no reason to exclude arson from the scope of the commission, since scores of people sit in our prisons based on arson investigators' testimony.
It is frightening that even though they can't produce a scientist who doesn't believe the Willingham arson investigation was botched, both the Corsicana Police Department and the State Fire Marshal's Office maintain that it was a good investigation.
If the attorney general's office finds that the law excludes arson investigators, it's time for the Legislature to fix the law."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/7397786.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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
