"The current position of the [fire marshal] that the investigators' original findings of arson are supported by fire science is absolutely untenable," he (Sam Bassett) concluded. "I speculate that this has made a lot of politicians uncomfortable and this has something to do with the timing of the Attorney General's findings."
Indeed, the case could be kept alive and the commission could finish its investigation because the State Fire Marshal's Office last year wrote to the commission defending the science used to convict Willingham and Willis – despite the scientific consensus to the contrary. By standing by the old science, the state fire marshal has seemingly made the "evidence" of its practices contemporary – that is, post-Sept. 1, 2005 – which would still, even under the most conservative reading of the A.G.'s ruling, allow the commission to consider it during its inquiry.
JORDAN SMITH; AUSTIN 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"According to Attorney General Greg Abbott, the state's Forensic Science Commission may investigate old cases provided it doesn't actually rely on old evidence to do so," Jordan Smith's column published in the Austin Chronicle on August 5, 2011 under the heading, "A.G. Ruling on Arson Probe Is 'Just Weird': Decision hog-ties commission's role in Willingham case," begins.
"Moreover, the commission is restricted to investigating claims related to questionable forensic science only if the entity being investigated – a police crime lab, say – was accredited by the state when the questionable analysis occurred," the column continues.
"In short, the A.G.'s opinion appears to have the effect of shuttering, before any final conclusion, the years-long investigation into the questionable fire science used to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham for the 1991 arson-murder of his three children in their Corsicana home. The A.G. ruling was made in response to questions posed by former commission chair and Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley.
Other interpretations of the ruling suggest that while the decision is clearly political in nature, it will not in fact end the investigation into Texas' use of fire science in criminal cases until the commission has its final say.
Since 2004, experts have questioned the science used to prove the 1991 fire was deliberately set; despite evidence showing that the science underpinning the case was likely flawed, Gov. Rick Perry allowed Willingham's execution to go forward. The Innocence Project brought a complaint to the FSC after the commission's formation by statute in 2005. Since then, roughly a dozen fire-science experts have said that the investigative techniques used by the State Fire Marshal's Office in the case were seriously flawed and that it was more likely that the fire was accidental. (The complaint also alleged that the same flawed science was used to send Ernest Willis to death row. The only difference between the two cases is that upon review, prosecutors in the Willis case agreed the science used to convict was flawed and Willis was freed.) That hasn't stopped the State Fire Marshal's Office from standing by its conclusions, however, a fact the commission called "untenable" in a preliminary report it wrote on the case earlier this year.
It has appeared that some officials – including Perry and Bradley – aren't inclined to have the Willingham case resolved. Just days before the commission was initially set to hear testimony from fire experts two years ago, Perry removed several members of the panel, including its self-selected chair, Austin defense attorney Sam Bassett, and installed Bradley as the new chair. The investigation was then immediately halted. Eventually, in January, the commission heard testimony from several fire experts and from the State Fire Marshal's Office, but shortly thereafter, Bradley questioned whether the commission actually had the authority to delve into the case at all. With the agreement from the panel, Bradley in late January asked Abbott's office to weigh in on three questions regarding the scope of the commission's authority. The panel then decided to postpone its report on the Willingham case – including an answer to the all-important question of whether the state was negligent by relying on outdated science to convict and to execute Willingham – until Abbott had an opportunity to weigh in.
Abbott did so July 29, opining that by statute, the commission may investigate cases preceding its creation – that is, prior to Sept. 1, 2005, when the act creating the commission took effect – but concluding the group may not consider any forensic evidence collected before that date. In other words, the commission may consider the Willingham case, for example, but not the science that led to Willingham's conviction and execution. "Thus, although the FSC may investigate allegations arising from incidents that occurred prior to September 1, 2005, it is prohibited, in the course of any such investigation, from considering or evaluating specific items of evidence that were tested or offered into evidence prior to that date," Abbott wrote. Moreover, the panel's investigative authority only extends to "those laboratories, facilities, or entities accredited by the [Department of Public Safety] at the time the forensic analysis [being questioned] took place."
Bassett, the well-respected Austin defense attorney whom Perry appointed and then pulled from the panel in 2009, says he finds the timing of the opinion questionable. Moreover, he noted in an email that a representative from the A.G.'s Office attended all of the meetings over which he presided, and the issue of jurisdiction was never raised. "It is frustrating for me to now see them interjecting themselves into this debate years after the ... investigation has progressed and is about to reach a conclusion.
"The current position of the [fire marshal] that the investigators' original findings of arson are supported by fire science is absolutely untenable," he concluded. "I speculate that this has made a lot of politicians uncomfortable and this has something to do with the timing of the Attorney General's findings."
Indeed, the case could be kept alive and the commission could finish its investigation because the State Fire Marshal's Office last year wrote to the commission defending the science used to convict Willingham and Willis – despite the scientific consensus to the contrary. By standing by the old science, the state fire marshal has seemingly made the "evidence" of its practices contemporary – that is, post-Sept. 1, 2005 – which would still, even under the most conservative reading of the A.G.'s ruling, allow the commission to consider it during its inquiry.
Although the A.G.'s ruling is "frankly ... just weird," says Stephen Saloom, policy director for the Innocence Project, there is nothing in it that would prevent the commission from considering whether the fire marshal is negligent by relying on outdated science. "The central element [to our complaint] is that the fire marshal has been negligent and remains negligent to this day for not informing the criminal justice system [that] the old arson science is invalid," he said. Indeed, that is the view apparently shared by state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who also serves as the Innocent Project's board chair. "Nothing in this [A.G.] opinion prevents the [commission] from completing its report and ruling that the [State Fire Marshal's Office] was negligent when it failed in its 'duty to correct' the flawed arson science that was used in numerous arson cases," Ellis said in a statement. "They had a 'duty to correct' prior to 2005, when the [FSC] legislation took effect, and after 2005, and they have never done so.""
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The column can be found at:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2011-08-05/a-g-ruling-on-arson-probe-is-just-weird/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
