PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am grateful to Paul Bieber for bringing the Arson Research Project, of which he is Director, to our attention. Mr. Bieber writes that a report which he kindly makes available to our readers touches on "fire pattern evidence presented in several of the questionable arson convictions contained in your blog and many more cases yet to be identified." He informs us that, "Research conducted by The Arson Research Project has confirmed what many of you have known for a long time; that determining the presence of an ignitable liquid by examining the resulting burn patterns or by determining that the fire burned abnormally hot in a post-flashover environment is extremely unreliable, and that conclusions based on this type of evidence have no place in a courtroom. This type of unreliable testimony is not as common as it used to be, but an unknown number of people continue to suffer its consequences in our nation's prisons." He goes on to say that, "The attached report, Fire Pattern Analysis and Case Study Review in Post-Flashover Fires, is the final report produced by The Arson Research Project secondary to a live-burn study conducted last October where four burn cells were burned beyond flashover - one with an ignitable liquid and three without. Maximum temperatures created by the fires in each cell were recorded and the burn patterns were compared. The suspicious burn patterns used to convict the defendants in the three case-studies reviewed in the report were created in every burn cell, regardless of ignitable liquids. Burn pattern samples were then removed from each burn cell and presented for examination, along with photographs and diagrams, to thirty-three experienced fire investigators in a blind study. This was the first study of its kind to measure the accuracy with which fire investigators are able to actually do what countless investigators have testified to; determine the presence of an ignitable liquid by examining the burn patterns created in a post flashover fire. The results were shocking, but not surprising. The accuracy of the fire investigators in identifying which samples contained an ignitable liquid was equivalent to flipping a coin, 50/50. This study confirmed that expert testimony in this area is no more reliable than a random guess. If you follow the national controversy regarding dubious arson convictions based on bad science, you will already be familiar with the case-studies contained in the report; those of Ed Graff, Todd Willingham and George Souliotes. Based on just this type of evidence, Willingham was executed in 2004, while Graf and Souliotes continue to serve life prison sentences (Souliotes is scheduled for a federal evidentiary hearing later this month in California where this report and the results of this research will be submitted in Souliotes' behalf). The conclusions in this report deal with exactly the type of evidence used to convict the defendants in the case-studies, and the same type of evidence that is an ongoing issue in the review of dubious arson convictions nationwide. Perhaps this report, and its conclusions, will be helpful to you. The Arson Research Project was founded for the purpose of objectively examining the reliably of evidence used in the investigation and prosecution of arson, and to identify arson convictions based on unreliable evidence. If you are aware of specific cases where this type of evidence was used to obtain an arson conviction, or our research and expertise can be of assistance to you, please don't hesitate to contact me." The Live Burn Report can be accessed at:
http://www.thearsonproject.org/live-burn-results
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;
