STORY: "American Association for the Advancement of Science report points out flaws in forensic fire science, offers suggestions for improvement," by Associate Editor Laura French, published by Forensic Magazine, on July 21, 2107.
GIST: "A
recent report by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science examines some of the shortcomings of current forensic fire
investigation practices, both on the scene and in the lab in cases which
may include suspected arson, and offers several suggestions for
bridging the gaps that have led to wrongful convictions, and possibly
some overlooked cases of intentional arson. One major finding of the report, published last week, was the
unreliability of fire investigators to determine the origin of a fire in
rooms where the fire had reached flashover—a point at which extreme
temperatures of about 500-600 degrees Celsius (932-1112 degrees
Fahrenheit) cause every ignitable surface in a room to immediately burst
into flames. The report describes this as the point at which “a fire in
a room becomes a room on fire.”........Suggestions for improving the state of modern forensic fire
investigation included conducting research to study burn patterns,
including full-scale and reduced scale tests in realistic conditions;
comparing computer-based fire models with the results of physical fire
tests; refining the use of canine units at fire scenes, which are
considered more efficient than technological counterparts such as
electronic “noses”; and reducing the likelihood of bias-tainted
judgments by fire experts through cognitive training, “blinded”
procedures and separation of scientific investigative roles from case
management roles. The report concluded that lab analysis of debris from fires was not
plagued with as many problems as on-the-scene analysis, but that “the
chemical evidence found at the scene of a fire can still be confusing
and misleading.” The report pointed out that some materials, when
burned, can produce chemicals that can be mistaken for ignitable liquid
residues (ILRs) often used as accelerants. This can make it difficult to
distinguish whether chemicals detected in fire debris are the result of
an arsonist’s use of an accelerant or the result of furniture and other
materials combusting.........The report mentions the impact that faulty fire science has had,
pointing out that 63 individuals have been exonerated of arson
convictions since 1991, according to the National Registry of
Exonerations. It adds that the number of arsonists who have gotten away
with their crimes due to faulty fire science cannot be known. One of the most infamous cases to raise questions about accuracy in
arson investigations was that of Cameron Todd Willingham, a Texas man
who was convicted of murder after investigators said the fire that
killed his three young children was intentionally set by him. Following
his conviction, Willingham was executed in 2004. Doubts about Willingham’s guilt and the accuracy of the forensic
science argued in the case have been widely raised since his conviction
and death, although he has never been formerly exonerated. In 2010, a
panel of the Texas Forensic Science Commission concluded that “flawed
science” had been used in the case, but that the investigators in the
case could not be considered negligent, as they were following the
accepted standards in place at the time,
the Houston Chronicle reported. The most recent arson exoneree,
according to the National Registry of Exonerations,
is Adam Gray, who was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated
arson at the age of 14 after two of his neighbors died in a fire at his
two-flat apartment building. During his trial, fire experts argued that
burn patterns found in the apartment indicated the use of an accelerant,
and a lab analyst testified that a “high-boiling petroleum distillate”
was found in a milk jug allegedly used to distribute the accelerant.
Gray was sentenced to life in prison, but released on May 3, 2017 after
two witnesses recanted their testimony, and a review of the case found
that the science used to convict him had since been debunked. The full AAAS report is available here:
https://www.aaas.org/report/fire-investigation A plain language version of the report is available here:
https://www.aaas.org/report/fire-investigation-plain-language-summary..."
The entire story can be found at:
https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/07/aaas-report-points-out-flaws-forensic-fire-science-offers-suggestions-improvement?et_cid=6031463&et_rid=979655504&type=headline&et_cid=6031463&et_rid=979655504&linkid=https%3a%2f%2fwww.forensicmag.com%2fnews%2f2017%2f07%2faaas-report-points-out-flaws-forensic-fire-science-offers-suggestions-improvement%3fet_cid%3d6031463%26et_rid%3d%%subscriberid%%%26type%3dheadline
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the
Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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 Please
send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest
to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy;
Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
