'Ed. Note: Chris Halkides has been kind enough to try to make us lawyers smarter by dumbing down science enough that we have a small chance of understanding how it's being used to wrongfully convict and, in some cases, execute defendants. Chris graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison with a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and teaches biochemistry, organic chemistry, and forensic chemistry at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington.'
GIST: "In 1989, Han Tak Lee and his daughter were staying in a 1000 square foot cabin in Pennsylvania when a fire destroyed it, claiming his daughter's life.
In 1990, Mr. Lee was convicted of first degree murder and arson, and sentenced to life without parole.
The evidence against him included identifying one ignition point of the fire by the presence of crazed glass, thin, irregular fractures.
The collapsed furniture and bed springs, spill patterns (pour patterns?), and deep charring and alligatoring of wood were also taken as evidence of a very hot fire; therefore a deliberately set fire.
Crazed glass is created by cold water hitting hot windowpanes.
Nor are collapsed furniture springs, pour patterns, alligator patterns or depth of charring of wood accepted any longer as evidence of arson.
In order to understand the laboratory evidence against Mr. Lee, one must have an understanding of what gasoline is and how it is detected.
Hydrocarbons are a class of chemical compounds that contain hydrogen, carbon, and no other elements.
Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons having 7-12 carbon atoms.
About 40% of gasoline consists of isoalkanes, compounds of the formula CNH2N+2, in which the carbon chain is branched, not linear. 20-50% of gasoline consists of alkylbenzenes, many of which have the formula C8H10.
Many common household items (turpentine, shoe soles, etc.) have hydrocarbons in them that are not gasoline.
Gas chromatography (GC) uses a column with a waxy liquid to separate molecules on the basis of the fraction of time they spend stationary (dissolved in the waxy liquid) versus the fraction of time they spend moving alongside a carrier gas.
A gas chromatogram is a trace in which time is then displayed along x-axis and detector output is displayed along the y-axis.
The time at which the signal reaches its maximum detected intensity is the retention time of that compound.
Compounds with a greater number of carbon atoms generally have higher boiling points and longer retention times than compounds with fewer carbons.
The relative signal areas within a mixture are related to the relative amounts of the compounds.
Some detectors respond to many classes of compounds without giving further indication of their identities.
Therefore, the equality of the retention times between a standard versus a questioned compound may occur because they are identical compounds or different compounds that emerged from the column at the same time coincidentally.
When GC is immediately followed by mass spectrometry (MS), the combined discriminatory power is greatly increased.
Mass spectrometry gives the mass of each compound and its fragments, which often leads to its unambiguous identification.
The Patricia Stallings case would probably not have come to trial if GC-MS had been used instead of GC alone.
Mr. Lee's case returned to the courtroom in 2014, and some of the focus then turned to the other testimony that was used to convict him.
One of the investigators performed calculations indicating that 62 gallons of home heating fuel and 12.2 pounds of gasoline had been used to set the fire.
Yet the report stated that only a furnace fuel filter and a container next to the fuel tank by the cabin produced evidence of an ignitable substance.
The prosecution used results from gas chromatography to allege that Mr. Lee's clothing contained "a volatile substance with a hydrocarbon range of C7-C22," meaning that the substance was a mixture of molecules with 7 to 22 carbon atoms.
By the time that the case was appealed, the gas chromatograms were no longer available.
The laboratory chemist who testified suggested the presence of a substantial quantity gasoline or Coleman fuel, despite no mention of this in the report.
Paradoxically, he also testified that there wasn't a sufficient quantity of gasoline to confirm by his instrument.
He claimed that the range of hydrocarbons (meaning the number of carbon atoms) found on Mr. Lee's clothing was the same as found on plastic items (probably a glove and a plastic jug) in the bathroom.
Mark Hansen wrote that the chemist testified that, "his analysis of the evidence revealed chemical hydrocarbon profiles that were consistent with the same mixture of home heating fuel and gasoline or Coleman fuel" that had been claimed to be the accelerants by a different witness.
The putative presence of hydrocarbons with up to 22 carbon atoms led the chemist to suggest that two accelerants (gasoline and fuel oil) had been used. Yet he denied under oath that mass spectrometry would have helped identify the other liquid.
The contention that 62 gallons of fuel oil could be used yet none detected in the fire debris beggars belief.
The calculations suggesting this quantity of accelerant were fallacious.
In the absence of data from mass spectrometry, the claim that hydrocarbons were present on Mr. Lee's clothing is highly dubious.
Aldehydes, for example, are sometimes found on clothing, and aldehydes have at least one oxygen atom, putting them into a different class from hydrocarbons.
Nor would finding hydrocarbons on his clothing be the same thing as finding gasoline.
A claim of identity of two mixtures based upon the similarity in the number of carbon atoms is nonsense.
For one thing, the heights of the peaks in the chromatogram would have to be similar; the components of turpentine have a similar range of retention times compared to the components of gasoline, yet they are very different hydrocarbons.
The claim that MS would not have been helpful is almost impossible to ascribe to incompetence; this and other problems in the chemist's testimony probably originate from his consciously attempting to bolster the prosecution's case.
This problem is distinct from unconscious bias that plagued the Brandon Mayfield fingerprint case or the fire aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard.
Mr. Lee was released circa 2014 and remained free despite an appeal by the prosecution.
Given the era, the use of crazed glass as a putative indicator of arson is not surprising.
The degree to which laboratory results were misinterpreted to fit the prosecution's narrative, discrepancies between the report and the testimony, and the lack of availability of the GC chromatograms for defense analysis, are equally disconcerting."
For further reading
Valena E. Beety & Jennifer D. Oliva, Evidence on Fire, 97 N.C. L. Rev. 483 (2019).
Mark Hansen "Long-held beliefs about arson science have been debunked after decades of misuse" ABA Journal 1 December 2015.
John Lentini "A Calculated Arson," Fire & Arson Investigator April 1999 20-25.
The entire post can be read at:
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2023/12/13/halkides-han-tak-lee-and-erroneous-arson-lab-work/
———————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: National Registry of Exonerations: "In June 2014, following a hearing, U.S. Magistrate Martin Carlson recommended that the petition be granted. “Today, with the benefit of extraordinary progress in human knowledge regarding fire science over the past two decades it is now uncontested that this fire science evidence — which was a critical component in the quantum of proof that led to Lee's conviction — is invalid, and that much of what was presented to Lee's jury as science is now conceded to be little more than superstition.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTRY: National Registry of Exonerations: Maurice Possley: December 28, 2015; Contributing factors: "False or Misleading Forensic Evidence, Inadequate Legal Defense."
| GIST: "At about 3 a.m. on July 29, 1989, a fire erupted in a cabin at Camp Hebron, a Christian retreat center in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, killing 20-year-old Ji Yun Lee. A week later, Monroe County Sheriff’s deputies arrested the woman’s father, 54-year-old Han Tak Lee, and charged him with first-degree murder and arson. The police said that arson investigators concluded the fire was deliberately set and that Lee made inconsistent statements about his efforts to rescue his daughter. Lee went to trial in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas in September 1990. The prosecution called three witnesses to testify about the fire: Daniel Aston, an expert origins and causes of fires; Pennsylvania State Trooper Thomas Jones, the investigating fire marshal; and Pennsylvania State police crime lab chemist Thomas Pacewicz, who performed analysis of debris for accelerants. The witnesses testified that the fire burned so fast and at such an extraordinarily high temperature that it could only have been caused by the intentional use of accelerants. One ignition point was identified by the presence of crazed glass—a network of thin cracks in glass that arson investigators believed were caused by a very hot fire. They testified that the furniture springs and bedsprings had collapsed, another supposed indicator of an extremely hot fire. The chemical analysis, according to the testimony, showed the presence of fuel oil plus another unidentified accelerant such as gasoline. The defense attorney had consulted an arson expert prior to trial, but decided not to call him as a witness. He did so because the expert—who concluded that the fire appeared to be accident—could not identify the actual cause of the fire. So the defense argued that Lee’s daughter, who was suffering from depression and had been heard saying that the cabin would be her “tomb,” set the fire herself to commit suicide. Lee, a South Korean immigrant who was a U.S. citizen, ran a clothing store in Manhattan and lived with his wife and another daughter in Queens. He testified in his defense that members of their church suggested that he take his daughter to Camp Hebron to pray and meditate. When the fire broke out at 3 a.m., Lee said he left the cabin after smelling smoke and hearing electrical wires burning. When he realized Ji Yun was still inside, he went back inside, but could not find her and fled because the flames and smoke were too intense. Her body was found near a bathroom where the roof collapsed during the fire. On September 17, 1990, the jury convicted Lee of first-degree murder and arson. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Lee appealed, and the case was remanded for a hearing on a motion to vacate the conviction on the ground that Lee’s trial attorney had failed to call a fire expert to testify. The motion was supported by an affidavit from arson expert John Lentini that stated that the prosecution’s witnesses had relied upon outdated fire science to conclude that the blaze was arson. The motion was denied and the convictions and sentence were upheld on appeal. In 1995, Lee filed a hand-written motion for a new trial. The prosecution was ordered by the judge to respond but never did so. Ultimately, in 2001, Lee, represented by attorney Peter Goldberger, filed an amended motion for a new trial based on Lentini’s analysis that the fire was an accident rather than arson. The motion sought the prosecution’s crime lab reports and underlying data. The Monroe County District Attorney’s Office did not oppose the motion but the judge denied it, saying that production of the materials would be “unduly burdensome” on the Pennsylvania State Police. After another amended petition for a new trial was filed in 2005 and again denied, Lee filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2008. Lentini submitted a 46-page affidavit that systematically discredited the prosecution’s arson evidence as outdated, unfounded or erroneous. For example, Lentini explained, the “crazed glass” that the prosecution’s witness cited as evidence of an ignition point is typically caused by rapid cooling of hot glass—frequently after it is sprayed with water by firefighters trying to extinguish the blaze—and has no value in determining whether a fire was caused by arson. Lentini concluded, “I can state unequivocally that all of the evidence presented to the Court (at trial) by the Commonwealth’s experts is consistent with an accidental fire. Using today’s standards, there is no credible evidence that would lead a competent investigator to conclude that the fire was intentionally set.” U.S. District Court Judge Malcom Muir denied the petition without a hearing, but in 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that decision and ordered a hearing. In June 2014, following a hearing, U.S. Magistrate Martin Carlson recommended that the petition be granted. “Today, with the benefit of extraordinary progress in human knowledge regarding fire science over the past two decades it is now uncontested that this fire science evidence — which was a critical component in the quantum of proof that led to Lee's conviction — is invalid, and that much of what was presented to Lee's jury as science is now conceded to be little more than superstition.” On August 8, 2014, Judge William Nealon, to whom the case had been reassigned, officially granted the writ, vacated Lee’s convictions and ordered him to be retried within 120 days. Lee was released on bond pending retrial. The prosecution appealed the ruling and on August 19, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision granting a new trial. In November 2015, Monroe County District Attorney David Christine announced that he would not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court because the chance of success was very slim. He also said there would be no retrial. The 120-day period to retry Lee from the Third Circuit ruling in August expired on December 17, 2015. In June 2021, Lee succombed to cancer." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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; |
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/47049136857587929
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.
Lawyer Radha Natarajan;
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
Tune into The Charles Smith Blog at:
http://www.smithforensic.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------
