"Some of Mr. Bradley's stratagems are breathtakingly bold and crass but as far as I can tell they're essentially working, at least if you assume the chairman's goal is to delay the commission's work as long as possible and ultimately, if he can, to kill all its ongoing investigations while diverting resources to innocuous projects. He's alienating his fellow commissioners in the process, no doubt, but there's scarce evidence that the chairman particularly cares about their good opinion, or for that matter yours or mine."
GRITS FOR BREAKFAST; Grits for Breakfast says it looks at the Texas criminal justice system, with a little politics and whatever else suits the author's (Scott Henson) fancy thrown in. All opinions are my own. The facts belong to everybody." Its motto: "Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I attended a meeting Friday of the Texas Forensic Science Commission at which Chairman John Bradley continued his quest to delay the commission's work as long as possible, this time pushing in executive session to request an Attorney General opinion to decide whether they have authority to consider the Todd Willingham case. See MSM coverage," the the Grits for Breakfast post published on Januray 24, 2011 under the heading, ""Delay, delay, it's the word of the day: Bradley proffers excuses to put off investigating forensic errors," begins.
"The commission retired to executive session immediately before the Willingham case was publicly discussed," the post continues.
"When commissioners each silently reentered the room about an hour later, everyone looked tense and grumpy; I'd love to have been a fly on the wall. (OTOH, as fate would have it, I ended up sitting next to Judge Barbara Hervey from the Court of Criminal Appeals, so the delay gave us a welcome chance to chat.)
Clearly jurisdictional issues were the main focus of discussion in executive session. Bradley has repeatedly argued that the commission has no authority to investigate older cases because it can only investigate accredited labs, and accreditation wasn't required until 2005. However, the Attorney General staffer who'd been advising the Commission - before Bradley pushed for creation of a General Counsel position, that is - repeatedly advised the FSC that they could investigate entities that now require accreditation but didn't in the past. Further, notes the Austin Statesman, "several legislators who were instrumental in creating the agency rebutted Bradley's analysis, saying the law was not intended to limit investigations to accredited labs or to post-2005 cases."
Both legislators and the commission's AG adviser have repeatedly said it would be absurd to limit investigations to post 2005 cases because the FSC was created in reaction to Houston crime lab scandals, and it would be nonsensical to claim the commission could not investigate the very case that spawned its creation. (It'd solve quite a few admittedly self-inflicted problems for the commission if the Lege would clarify that language this session: It would solve many more problems if they changed the law to let commissioners name their own chair.)
In any event, Bradley wouldn't let the jurisdictional issues go, so now every active case before the commission - not just Willingham's - will be delayed while the chairman seeks to neuter his own agency's authority. (Of course, by all appearances, that's the main reason he was appointed.) Further, under state law, only the chairman himself - not the entire commission - may draft an opinion request, so look for Bradley to slant the request as much as possible to solicit the outcome he wants.
On Bradley's motion, though quite clearly over his objection, the commission voted to move forward drafting their report on the Willingham case while the AG opinion is pending. This was a clever parliamentary move. It was pretty clear the chairman has isolated himself by pushing delay so hard, and the rest of the commission seemed determined to move forward regardless of his contrary opinion. But through the language in his motion, Bradley was able to exert more control over that process by changing how the final report will be drafted. From Chuck Lindell at the Statesman:
Originally, a four-member subcommittee was to draft a report during a public meeting and then present it to the full committee of seven forensic scientists, a defense lawyer and a prosecutor.
Now, commissioners will submit suggestions to the agency's general counsel, who will compile a draft report. Final language will be hashed out by the full commission in a future open meeting.
Of course, the brand spanking new General Counsel reports to Mr. Bradley, so this new process gives the chairman much more input over drafting than if a committee did it. Indeed, between controlling the content of the AG request and shifting drafting duties on the Willingham report to the General Counsel, the chairman cleverly asserted greater control over the process in a number of important ways on Friday, even though he'd (much) prefer it not go forward at all.
And speaking of the new General Counsel, the proposed House budget cuts the Forensic Science Commission's budget by roughly the amount of her salary. Assuming that reduction stands, the FSC would be faced with a choice of firing their General Counsel or taking money for her salary out of the pot available for investigating forensic flaws. My own view is that was precisely the purpose of Bradley's push to create the General Counsel's position to begin with. But whatever his or anyone else's intentions, that's the tradeoff facing them under the proposed budget. (The budget reduction wasn't mentioned by commissioners at Friday's meeting.)
Another sign of behind-the-scenes tension - and another topic where the commission seemed united against its chairman - regarded whether to accept anonymous complaints, which heretofore had always been allowed. The commission is updating their intake forms, over the chair's objections, specifically to allow for anonymous complaints. Bradley argued against the idea briefly, but it was clear he'd already lost this fight in other forums and he didn't press the subject. Dr. Sarah Kerrigan noted that the federal Forensic Science Reform Act filed by Sen. Patrick Leahy would allow for anonymous complaints.
A final oddity was that the chairman seemed to misrepresent or at least dramatically downplay the opinion of Dr. Niram Peerwani regarding a recommendation to accept a case based on allegations against the crime lab in Austin. Peerwani regrettably was unable to attend because he had to testify in court that day. But at the screening committee meeting in December (which Grits attended), he recommended the FSC close out the case, declaring there was "no basis" for the complaint. It had been thoroughly vetted by three other agencies and both Drs Peerwani and Eisenberg said enough investigation had been done. According to that discussion, much of the complaint deals with personnel and supervisory issues, not science, and no specific defendants' cases were implicated.
In response, Bradley had made a rather legalistic argument that the screening committee should consider only a handful of objective criteria - is it an accredited lab, is the complaint about a forensic science as defined under the law?, etc. - and that Peerwani's arguments for "closure" of the case would be better made before the full commission. The chairman also argued that, since the complaints seemed unfounded and the lab seemed to have responded to them as they should, the case would give the commission a chance to "deliver a positive message" to accredited labs by affirming their work. After Dr. Eisenberg seconded the chair's motion to recommend the case, Peerwani reluctantly went along.
But Peerwani's rather strong objections to spending resources on the Austin case weren't voiced in absentia when it was discussed on Friday. Instead, his Aye vote at the screening committee was portrayed as an endorsement that the FSC investigate, which was the opposite of my impression from my memory and notes. Be that as it may, the case has been delegated to an investigative committee whose first meeting date has not been announced.
Some of Mr. Bradley's stratagems are breathtakingly bold and crass but as far as I can tell they're essentially working, at least if you assume the chairman's goal is to delay the commission's work as long as possible and ultimately, if he can, to kill all its ongoing investigations while diverting resources to innocuous projects. He's alienating his fellow commissioners in the process, no doubt, but there's scarce evidence that the chairman particularly cares about their good opinion, or for that matter yours or mine."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post can be found at:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/01/delay-delay-its-word-of-day-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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
