UP-DATE: CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM CASE: TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION TO MEET JANUARY 29TH. TEXAS MORATORIUM NETWORK REPORTS;

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 found him 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." Two days before the Forensic Science Commission was to question Beyler in a public forum, the governor replaced its chairman and two other members whose terms were up. That forced the commission to delay the hearing so new members could read up on the case, and no new date has been set. Perry has since replaced a third member of the commission.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Texas Moratorium Network reported earlier today that The Texas Forensic Science Commission, whose review of the controversial case of Cameron Todd Willingham was delayed when Perry replaced all of his appointees on the commission, has scheduled a Jan. 29 meeting in Harlingen, South Texas.

The agenda has not been posted.

The Texas Moratorium Network post can be found at:

http://stopexecutions.blogspot.com/2010/01/texas-forensic-science-commission.html

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

CRITICAL COMMENT: CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM CASE; OTHER FALSE ARSON CONVICTIONS; ANOTHER POWERFUL FEATURE BY DAVE MANN; THE TEXAS OBSERVER;

"THE TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION COULD MAKE A HUGE DENT IN THE PROBLEM. THE LEGISLATURE CREATED THE COMMISSION IN 2005 AFTER SCANDALS AT CRIME LABS AROUND THE STATE. THE COMMISSION WAS CHARGED WITH INVESTIGATING INNOCENCE CLAIMS BASED ON FLAWED FORENSICS AND BRINGING TO LIGHT FAULTY PRACTICES THAT MIGHT HAVE SENT INNOCENT PEOPLE TO PRISON. IT’S ONE OF THE FIRST SUCH GOVERNMENTAL BODIES IN THE COUNTRY. FOR ONCE, IT LOOKED AS IF TEXAS WOULD BE A CRIMINAL JUSTICE INNOVATOR.

BUT PERRY’S INTERVENTION HAS HALTED ANY PROGRESS BY THE COMMISSION. JOHN BRADLEY, THE HARD-NOSED WILLIAMSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR PERRY RECENTLY PUT IN CHARGE OF THE COMMISSION, SEEMS INTENT ON WRITING NEW RULES AND PROCEDURES. CRITICS VIEW THIS AS A STALL TACTIC. AT A RECENT LEGISLATIVE HEARING BRADLEY REFUSED TO SAY WHEN HE PLANNED TO RESTART THE INVESTIGATION INTO CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM’S CONVICTION AND EXECUTION.

DAVE MANN: THE TEXAS OBSERVER;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 found him 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." Two days before the Forensic Science Commission was to question Beyler in a public forum, the governor replaced its chairman and two other members whose terms were up. That forced the commission to delay the hearing so new members could read up on the case, and no new date has been set. Perry has since replaced a third member of the commission.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Mann has written yet another powerful feature article on false arson convictions in the State of Texas for the Texas Observer;

(Wikipedia tells us that: "The Texas Observer (also known as the Observer) is an American political newsmagazine published bi-weekly and based in Austin, Texas. Though nonpartisan, the publication has historically been an advocate for liberal political policies.")

Mann's latest salvo appeared in the Texas Observer on November 27, 2009, under the heading "Fire and Innocence" and the sub-heading "Evidence suggests that hundreds of Texans are in prison on false arson convictions. What can be done to free them—and prevent similar injustices in the future?"

"Gerald Hurst is one of the nation’s foremost authorities on fire and explosives," the article begins.

"At age 72, he’s tall and lean, with graying hair combed back on his head and a white beard—think Santa Claus after a Nutrisystem diet," it continues.

"Within minutes of welcoming me into his West Austin home in the fall of 2008, he had me hooked, recounting vivid, head-scratching stories of person after person who’d been wrongly convicted of arson.

That was what I’d come to hear. I had developed a fascination with arson cases—specifically, with the methods fire investigators used to distinguish intentionally set fires from accidental ones. Until recently, the process was more art than science. And in many places, it still is. Fire investigators long worked from a basic set of assumptions about how buildings burn—“old wives’ tales,” as Hurst calls them, passed from one generation to another. For decades, they walked into the remains of charred buildings in search of the same clues to arson: furniture and windows buckled by extreme heat; burn patterns on the floor caused by an accelerant like gasoline; and other markers that were supposed to indicate that a fire had spread, quickly and wildly. They took those markers to mean that a fire had been ignited on purpose. And then they used the evidence to send thousands of people to prison.

But many of the investigators’ assumptions have turned out to be wrong. Over the past 15 years, the forensic science of arson has undergone a revolution led by experts like Hurst. With nearly 800 people serving time for arson convictions in Texas prisons alone, the wider implications aren’t hard to grasp. It now appears that hundreds of Texans have been wrongly convicted on the basis of outdated and inaccurate forensic evidence. Nobody knows exactly how many, because no one’s looked comprehensively at the cases of those in prison for arson. I wanted to dig into as many of those cases as I could. Hurst liked the idea, and he offered to help examine any suspicious cases I could turn up through court documents and police records.

Hurst, who holds a doctorate. in chemistry from Cambridge University, spent most of three decades working in the private sector as a fire and explosives expert. He also worked as an expert for hire in civil cases, usually insurance disputes over the cause of a fire. His first exposure to the shoddy forensic science being used as evidence in criminal cases came only about a decade ago. Hurst was asked to examine the evidence used to convict a Fort Stockton woman named Sonia Cacy, sent to prison in 1993 for allegedly killing her uncle in a house fire. Hurst and his wife drove to West Texas to meet Cacy. On the way, Hurst read through her case file. He was shocked to see the flawed, outdated forensics that had been used in this capital murder case. Cacy was innocent, and Hurst’s testimony ultimately helped exonerate her. She was released in 1998 after serving six years of a 99-year sentence. It also gave him a new mission. Since the late 1990s, Hurst has testified, pro bono, in dozens of arson cases around the country as an expert witness for the defense. In Texas, he helped exonerate Ernest Ray Willis, who spent 17 years on Death Row for a fire he didn’t start.

Watch for Falling Arson

But Hurst has gained the most notoriety for his work on the now-infamous Cameron Todd Willingham case. Willingham was convicted of arson murder for allegedly starting a 1991 fire at his North Texas home that killed his three daughters. Just weeks before Willingham’s execution in 2004, Hurst was asked to look at the evidence. He saw immediately that investigators had used outdated assumptions to convict Willingham. Working against the clock, he hurriedly wrote a report that debunked much of the physical evidence. Hurst concluded in his report that “most of the conclusions reached by the Fire Marshal would be considered invalid in light of current knowledge.” (You can read the whole report here.) Willingham’s lawyer faxed the report to Gov. Rick Perry’s office hours before the scheduled lethal injection. Because the governor’s office has refused to release relevant documents, it’s unclear what, if anything, the governor’s staff did with Hurst’s report or whether Perry ever saw it. But the governor let the execution go forward.

Hurst was the first fire-science expert to review the case. Since Willingham was put to death, eight more of the nation’s leading fire scientists have examined the evidence. Every one of them has agreed with Hurst that the forensics were outdated and that the fire was likely accidental. That would mean Texas almost certainly executed an innocent man.

In the past few months, the Willingham case has become a full-blown scandal. The New Yorker ran a 16,000-word story in late August, and all of a sudden people across the country were talking about the case. Then in late September, Perry booted three members off of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which was investigating the Willingham and Willis cases, just three days before a crucial hearing on scientists’ findings. Perry’s new appointees promptly canceled the hearing and have yet to reschedule it. Even conservative commentators cried cover-up, suggesting that Perry, in a tough battle for re-election, was trying to subvert an investigation that might prove he oversaw the execution of an innocent man.

photo courtesy Gerald HurstThe Willis and Willingham cases are not unique; they just happen to have gained wide public attention. Hurst has seen many cases in which the forensic evidence was as bad or worse. In the basement of his Austin home, he continues to dig through case files submitted by attorneys and families across Texas and the nation. In the last two weeks of October alone, he received requests to examine a half-dozen arson cases. Some of the defendants are obviously guilty, he says. Other cases have flaws that leave questions about the defendants’ guilt. But in about half the cases he sees, fire investigators have conjured arson evidence that is so obviously wrong—based on ludicrous theories and long-disproved methodologies—that it would almost be funny, he says, if someone weren’t sitting in jail because of it.

“Older cases, you can pretty much assume it’s probably a bad case,” Hurst says. “But new cases come in too, and only a small percentage of them are really good cases—I mean where they’ve done their homework, eliminated accidental causes and pretty well established arson. But I don’t see many. I see [investigators] doing some of the same things they were doing in the ’80s.”

With Hurst’s help, I soon identified three Texas men who were convicted largely by disproved arson forensics. The Observer has told their stories this year as part of a series that will continue into 2010. (See above for a review of the three cases we have documented thus far.) The evidence against Curtis Severns of Plano, Ed Graf from outside Waco and Alfred Guardiola of Houston was thin and occasionally absurd. Yet their cases, unlike Willingham’s, received little or no media attention. All three are almost surely innocent. All three remain in prison on sentences that stretch for decades to come. And they are far from alone.

Texas fire statistics suggest that those falsely convicted of arson number in the hundreds. Hurst’s research leads him to contend that at least one-third, and perhaps even half, of all arson convictions have been based on junk science. In Texas, that would mean between 250 and 400 likely innocent people are sitting in prison at this very moment.

“So,” Hurst asks, “what do you do about it?” For Texans concerned about this mass miscarriage of justice, that is now the urgent question.

The first step in remedying the widespread problem of false arson convictions is understanding why they happen.

Arson is one of the rare crimes for which a defendant can be convicted almost exclusively on the basis of a forensic expert’s testimony. If a fire investigator testifies that the blaze at your house or business was intentionally set, someone—quite possibly you—is headed to prison. It can happen to anybody. The three stories documented thus far by the Observer demonstrate that.

Curtis Severns (“Burn Patterns,” April 3) was a gun store owner, husband and father in a Dallas suburb. After many fits and starts, he finally saw his life coming together—until the night his store burned in 2004. Severns had been the last to leave the store before it exploded in flames. He maintained his innocence, and there was no valid evidence that the store had been intentionally torched. But expert testimony convinced the jury that Severns did it. He landed in federal prison on a 27-year sentence he is still serving.

Curtis Severns

The Fire: In his Plano gun shop on Aug. 21, 2004.

The Evidence: Prosecutors claimed multiple points of origin at scene proves Severns committed arson. Accidental fires almost never start in multiple places.

Forensic Flaws: Fire scientists say it was likely started by an electrical short and spread by exploding aerosol cans full of flammable gun cleaner. New video evidence proves aerosol cans can spread fire and create the illusion of multiple points of origin.

Motive: He drastically reduced his insurance policy months before the fire. He would have lost money if the store were destroyed.

Sentenced to: 27 years in federal prison in June 2007.,/p>

Postscript: Severns remains in federal prison in Beaumont. His sentence has been reduced; he has 15 more years to serve. After the Observer story, Walter Reaves, a Waco attorney who works with the Innocence Project of Texas, took on the case pro bono.

Ed Graf (“Victim of Circumstance,” May 29) had built a life that many would envy. He was an insurance adjuster with a healthy salary, a family and a large house in an affluent suburban neighborhood outside Waco. His alleged crime was so horrific—Graf was convicted of dragging his two young stepsons to a backyard utility shed and burning them alive—that many in the Waco area still remember it vividly, two decades into Graf’s life sentence for arson-murder.

Ed Graf:

The Fire: In a shed behind Graf’s house in suburban Waco on Aug. 26, 1986, that killed his two stepsons.

The Evidence: Fire investigators contended that burn patterns at the scene and the position of door locks proved Graf had ignited gasoline and locked the door to the shed.

The Forensic Flaws: Nearly every piece of forensic evidence that convicted Graf has since been disproved. Reading burn patterns in post-flashover fires is no longer seen as a reliable way to determine how a fire started. Subsequent investigation also showed that the door to shed was likely open. If the door had been closed, the fire would have burned out from lack of oxygen in a windowless shed. Defense attorneys theorized the kids, who had history of playing with fire, might have started the blaze and lost control.

Sentenced to: Life in prison in 1988.

Postscript: Little has changed in Graf’s case since the Observer’s ­original story. Graf remains in state prison.

Alfred Guardiola (“I Was Just a Junkie,” Oct. 2) was a heroin addict living a semi-nomadic existence in a poor East Houston neighborhood. He’s now served half of a 40-year sentence for allegedly starting a house fire that killed a married couple and two children Guardiola had never met. He was connected to the fire only because he rushed from a neighbor’s house to try to help the victims.

Alfredo Guardiola:

The Fire: In a house in East Houston that killed two adults and two children on May 11, 1989.

Evidence: Guardiola confessed to the crime after 13-hour interrogation. He quickly recanted and says the confession was coerced. Fire investigators also believed burn patterns at the scene proved an arsonist used gasoline to start the fire.

Forensic Flaws: Experts see no evidence of arson. No gasoline was ever detected at the scene. Fire scientists say the burn patterns were likely caused by flashover, not gasoline. Testimony from numerous eyewitnesses points to an accidental fire.

Motive: Prosecutors contended Guardiola burned the house to prevent the family from implicating him in recent burglaries. But Guardiola wasn’t directly involved in the burglaries, and the family didn’t even know who he was.

Sentenced to: 40 years in prison in 1993.

Postscript: Guardiola has 20 years left on his sentence. After reading the Observer story, lawyers with the Innocence Project of Texas are looking into Guardiola’s case.

As different as each case is, all three have something in common: They were based on arson evidence that’s been long since disproved. For instance, all three fires appeared to spread unusually fast and burn unusually hot. That was once considered a sure sign that an accelerant like gasoline had been used to ignite a blaze. And where there was gasoline, the theory went, there had to be an arsonist.

Research has shown that the theory is bogus. Accidental fires can burn even hotter than blazes set on purpose. At www.texasobserver.org, you can watch a video of a test fire in which a lit cigarette left in a couch turns a room into an inferno in just four minutes.

The first time I spoke with Gerald Hurst, we sat on the wraparound sofa in his living room. He pointed out that if the couch we were sitting on—given its size and flammable material—happened to ignite, it would engulf the room in just minutes.

Many investigators still look for clues that a fire has burned especially hot—melted bed springs, deeply charred wood. Scientists now know that these can be products of an accidental fire. But they have long been used as evidence of arson.

One of the most infamous falsehoods is the phenomenon of “crazed glass,” in which weblike cracks form on a window of a burned building. Crazed glass was once considered proof that a fire had burned especially hot and fast, and thus had to be arson. This notion was used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham. But recent experiments have shown that crazed glass actually occurs when water from a fire hose hits a hot window.

Another longtime staple of fire investigation is “reading” the burn patterns at a scene. Investigators believed that certain types of burns on a wall or floor could tell the story about how a fire ignited, and that story often involved gasoline. In trials, investigators have testified that they observed “pour patterns” on a floor, where the defendant had supposedly poured gasoline. They’ve also cited burn marks on walls that they said meant the fires had started on the floor, fueled by gasoline, and quickly burned upward.
Those myths of arson science were proven false in 1991, when fire investigators in Jacksonville, Fla., made a startling discovery. They were probing a house fire that looked like textbook arson: “Pour patterns” could be seen on the floor after a fire that had spread rapidly. Gasoline must have been used, the investigators thought. But to be certain, they took the unusual step of running a test that would become known as the Lime Street Fire. The investigators found an abandoned house nearby, similar to the one that had burned, and filled it with similar furniture. Then they staged an accidental fire scenario—no gasoline used, in other words. When the test fire was extinguished, the investigators were stunned to see similar “pour patterns” scorched on the floor. How could that be, if no gasoline was used?

Eventually they figured it out. The original house fire had achieved a level of intense burning known as “flashover,” which occurs when enough smoke and gas intensify to make a room explode into flames. (The telltale sign of flashover is when flames burst from windows and curl toward the roof.) At flashover, a fire can spread quickly in many directions—even downward, which investigators once thought was impossible. Flashover caused by accidental fires can leave burn patterns and create burn holes in the floor that were previously thought to prove that an arsonist had ignited several starting points. “Pour patterns,” it turned out, were actually burn marks left by post-flashover burning. They were not signs of arson. In essence, the Lime Street Fire showed that flashover can make an accidental fire look very much like an arson.

The fires that led to both Graf’s and Guardiola’s convictions went to flashover. Investigators testified that “pour patterns” and other burn marks convinced them that gasoline—and, thus, arsonists—had started the fires. Hurst is convinced that the burn patterns were caused by normal post-flashover burning. (In Guardiola’s case, no evidence of gasoline was even found.)

“There is no such thing as a pour pattern after you’ve had prolonged post-flashover burning,” Hurst says. After flashover, it’s very difficult—often impossible—to determine how a fire started.

But even today, Hurst still sees cases in which investigators base arson findings on burn patterns caused by flashover. “How long has it been since I’ve seen a case like that?” he asks rhetorically. “Oh, I haven’t seen a case like that since, I think it’s been, two weeks.”

In many parts of the country, and in much of rural Texas, fire investigators are poorly versed in the forensic discoveries of the last two decades. Most are former firefighters or police and military officers. In many jurisdictions, they can become certified fire investigators after a 40-hour course.

John Lentini, who helped run the Lime Street experiment in Florida and later examined the Cameron Todd Willingham case, says the problems with arson evidence won’t be fixed until fire investigators have a better understanding of science. “As long as we want to pay $35,000 a year to an ex-firefighter,” he says, “we’re not going to be able to afford the kind of people who need to be doing the work.”

In a perfect world, Lentini would like to see departments pay fire investigators more and require an advanced degree in physics or chemistry. He knows that’s unlikely. The more immediate and affordable solution is better training: Make the courses longer and more intensive, so “guys who are truly incompetent won’t get certified.”

Training for investigators has improved in recent years, and fire investigations are much more scientific than they once were. But it’s scattershot, says Gerald Hurst. “It’s totally non-uniform. There are pockets where they get it right, because they’ve taken the right courses.” At the same time, Hurst says, “There are literally thousands of fire investigators doing whatever they damn well please. There are courts who don’t have a clue what’s real and what’s not, and their sources of information ... are the very people who are doing the bad investigating.”

Hurst suspects that some investigators learn proper techniques during their initial training but are subsequently influenced by apprenticeships with older investigators who still subscribe to those “old wives’ tales.”

To remedy the problems with fire investigation, Hurst and Lentini both want to see a standardized curriculum instituted by state fire marshal offices. They also believe that investigators, to maintain their certifications, should be required to take annual continuing education courses.

Beyond better training and certification, Lentini and Hurst also recommend changing the way arson cases are tried. Arson trials are different from those of other crimes because the basic issue normally isn’t who committed the crime but whether there was a crime at all. “If it’s arson, it’s usually pretty obvious who did it,” Lentini points out. But if the fire was accidental, no crime occurred in the first place.

One solution: separate trials into two segments. In the first phase, the defendant would not even be in court. The exclusive issue would be fire science: Was this arson? If a jury concludes that the fire was intentionally set, the second phase of the trial would begin, with the defendant’s guilt or innocence determined.

This reform would change the outcomes of many arson trials. Prosecutors often center their cases on demonizing defendants—a handy way to mask flaws in arson evidence. This technique was used in all three cases investigated by the Observer. Curtis Severns, the gun-shop owner, was misleadingly portrayed at his trial as broke and desperate for the insurance money the blaze would bring. Ed Graf was described in court as a monstrous “Jekyll and Hyde” type. Alfredo Guardiola was depicted as a gangster. Cameron Todd Willingham is still being called a “monster”; Perry said so in October when he declared that, even if the arson evidence was mistaken, Willingham was still guilty because he was an awful person. And perhaps the most egregious example was Ernest Ray Willis, who was administered powerful sedatives during his 1987 trial in Fort Stockton. In open court, the prosecutor referred to the drugged-up Willis’ eyes as “cold fish eyes.”

How many innocent people have been convicted of arson in Texas? Data from the state fire marshal’s office offer chilling clues that point to a number in the hundreds.

As the new understanding of how fire behaves has slowly penetrated the world of fire investigation, the number of fires considered arson has dropped dramatically in the state. Between 1997 and 2007, there was a 60 percent drop in the number of fires deemed “incendiary.” In 1997, 15,949 arsons were reported in Texas. Ten years later, the number had fallen to 5,687.

But there aren’t fewer fires in Texas. The overall number of fires remained fairly consistent in that 10-year period, from year to year, between 73,000 and 95,000.

Are there simply fewer arsonists? Gerald Hurst doesn’t buy that. Rather, it seems clear to him that fire investigators are ­getting it right more often. He believes that improved and standardized training would lead to another huge decrease in the number of arson findings.

The massive drop in arsons points to disturbing evidence of how many potentially innocent Texans might be in jail. If most of the 60 percent drop is accounted for by accidental fires that would have been ruled arsons in previous years, it’s reasonable to assume that 30 to 50 percent of the people in prison on arson convictions are innocent.

In Texas, that would add up to between 250 and 400 wrongly convicted people.

Even so, no one has attempted a comprehensive review of older arson cases. To date, the job of examining those convictions has fallen on media outlets like the Observer and nonprofit groups like the Innocence Project, which lack the resources for a comprehensive review of all cases. Criminal-justice experts like Scott Henson, who writes the Grits for Breakfast blog, have called on the Texas attorney general’s office to conduct a statewide probe of arson convictions. It’s difficult work that requires significant funding.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission could make a huge dent in the problem. The Legislature created the commission in 2005 after scandals at crime labs around the state. The commission was charged with investigating innocence claims based on flawed forensics and bringing to light faulty practices that might have sent innocent people to prison. It’s one of the first such governmental bodies in the country. For once, it looked as if Texas would be a criminal justice innovator.

But Perry’s intervention has halted any progress by the commission. John Bradley, the hard-nosed Williamson County prosecutor Perry recently put in charge of the commission, seems intent on writing new rules and procedures. Critics view this as a stall tactic. At a recent legislative hearing Bradley refused to say when he planned to restart the investigation into Cameron Todd Willingham’s conviction and execution.

It’s still possible that the commission’s final report on the Willingham case will provide a primer of sorts for arson investigations, an official list of the types of fire evidence that should not be admitted in court. But with Bradley delaying the probe, it could take years for the commission to issue findings. Asked by lawmakers when the commission might report on the Willingham case, Bradley replied, “When it’s ready.”

Meanwhile, Severns, Graf and Guardiola remain in prison. Following the Observer’s exposés, their cases have received some media attention through newspaper stories, radio reports and blogs. The Innocence Project is working to free all three men.
But the criminal justice process is grindingly slow. And hundreds of other innocent people are almost certainly wasting away in Texas prisons."

The article can be found at:

http://www.texasobserver.org/features/fire-and-innocence

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM CASE; SCIENCEINSIDER INTERVIEWS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL PANEL WHICH RECENTLY PROBED FORENSIC SCIENCE;

"THE WILLINGHAM CASE APPEARS TO BE OUR WORST NIGHTMARE COME TRUE; A MAN WHO MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN INNOCENT, HAS BEEN PUT TO DEATH. THIS CASE REQUIRES THAT STATES AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY CAREFULLY EXAMINE THE ADJUDICATIVE SYSTEM THAT PERMITS THIS TO HAPPEN. BY THEIR OWN COUNT, THE INNOCENCE PROJECT’S ACTIVITIES HAVE RESULTED IN THE EXONERATION OF MORE THAN 240 CONVICTED PEOPLE. MORE THAN A DOZEN WERE ON DEATH ROW."

JAY SIEGEL; SCIENCEINSIDER;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 found him 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."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------September
ScienceInsider published this interview on September 15, 2009, under the heading: "Forensic Science on Trial: Part II," by Eli Kintisch,

"In Part I, ScienceInsider interviewed a fire investigator on the topic of arson and forensic science in the United States, an issue brought to the forefront by the controversial execution of Todd Willingham in Texas in 2004," the article containing the interview began.

"Now we conducted an email interview with a member of the landmark National Research Council panel which in February found "a tremendous need for the forensic science community to get better," it continued.

"Jay Siegel is the director of the Forensic and Investigative Sciences Program at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

Q: How did the flaws laid out in the Willingham case reflect on larger issues about forensic science in the United States?

J.S.: First, it is necessary to distinguish what happened in the Willingham case from the practice of forensic science in the U.S. as explored by the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] Committee that looked at forensic science. The problems with the Willingham case arose from inadequate training and experience of the fire scene investigators. ... The issues that the NAS Committee dealt with concerned the status of laboratory forensic science rather than crime scene investigation. Although CSI should be more scientifically based and should fall within the purview of forensic science, it is generally considered to be part of the law enforcement process. Crime scene investigation training stresses observation and data collection but not critical thinking and scientific analysis. This is what leads to the tragic outcome in the Willingham case.

Q: What impact has the Innocence Project had on the issue?

J.S.: There is no doubt that the Innocence Project(s) around the country have had a major effect on law enforcement, forensic science and the judicial system. They have called attention to the frailties in our criminal justice system, especially with respect to the death penalty debate. The Willingham case appears to be our worst nightmare come true; a man who may very well have been innocent, has been put to death. This case requires that states and the Federal judiciary carefully examine the adjudicative system that permits this to happen. By their own count, the Innocence Project’s activities have resulted in the exoneration of more than 240 convicted people. More than a dozen were on death row.

Certainly the development of DNA typing has had a major effect on the efforts of the Innocence Project. Most of the exonerations have come about because of post-conviction DNA testing. The Innocence Project attorneys claim that a large percentage of these wrongful convictions came about in the first place because of improper analysis and/or testimony by forensic scientists. Although the magnitude of this contribution is hotly contested by elements of the forensic science community, it is part of the reason why the NAS Committee was convened to examine forensic science.

Q: If the Academies' recommendations had been in place might Willingham still be alive?

J.S.: It is possible. The NAS Committee did not devote much attention to crime scene investigation including fire investigation. It was more concerned with the overall infrastructure of forensic science and laboratory science practices. The Committee’s recommendations did call for much better funding of research, education and training in forensic science. There is little doubt that more of these activities would better inform the entire field of law enforcement including crime scene investigation, infusing it with a badly needed dose of science. This would, perforce, improve the quality of fire investigations and make the investigators’ conclusions more reliable.

Q: Since the NAS panel came out with its recommendations have any of them been picked up by policymakers?

J.S.: Not yet. There have been several hearings in the Congress, mainly in the Senate, on the findings of the NAS Committee on forensic science. There is lots of activity in the Congress that will determine the best ways to implement as many of the thirteen recommendations as are possible financially and politically. The chief benefit of the report thus far is that a robust debate has begun on forensic science in general and the recommendations in particular. Congress seems to be very serious about curing some of the most serious ills in forensic science and will hopefully provide badly needed funding to improve research, education and quality of services."

The interview can be found at:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/09/forensic-scienc-1.html

hlevy15@gmail.com;

CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM CASE: WHO IS DAVID GRANN?

"HIS ARTICLES HAVE COVERED EVERYTHING FROM NEW YORK CITY'S ANTIQUATED WATER TUNNELS TO THE ARYAN BROTHERHOOD PRISON GANG TO THE SEARCH FOR THE GIANT SQUID. HIS STORIES HAVE ALSO BEEN CHOSEN FOR MANY ANTHOLOGIES AND HAVE APPEARED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, AND THE NEW REPUBLIC, WHERE HE IS ALSO A CONTRIBUTING EDITOR."

BIOGRAPHY; THE MICHAEL KELLY AWARDS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 found him 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."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Publisher's note: David Grann's New Yorker story on the Cameron Todd Willingham case - "trial by Fire" - has already had a huge impact on the death penalty in the U.S.A. As a fellow journalist, I was naturally interested in the background of the man behind the story. We get some sense of who he is from from the Web-site for the award set up in honour of the late Michael Kelly who was Editor and Chief Editorial Advisor for the Atlantic Media Company. David Grann is described as a 2009 finalist for the award which goes to a writer who exemplifies a quality that animated Michael Kelly's career, "The fearless pursuit and expression of truth."

Harold Levy...Publisher of the Charles Smith Blog.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citation
"The Brand" by David Grann documents the rise and potential demise of the Aryan Brotherhood, a murderous gang that has spread its tentacles throughout the federal prison system and beyond. In his fearlessly reported and brilliantly written feature, Grann vividly depicts the brutal subculture of America's maximum security penitentiaries. He also tells the inspiring story of how a gutsy prosecutor named Gregory Jessner took on the gang, at great personal risk. Grann shows how by indicting the Aryan Brotherhood, Jessner is striking a blow for the rights of some of the least sympathetic victims in our society -- convicted, violent criminals who have become prey inside our prison walls.

Excerpt
"The Brand"
February 16 & 23, 2004
There are hundreds of gangs in this country: the Crips, the Bloods, the Latin Dragons, the Dark Side Nation, the Lynch Mob. But the Aryan Brotherhood is one of the few gangs that were born in prison. In 1964, as the nation's racial unrest spread into the penitentiaries, a clique of white inmates at San Quentin prison, in Marin County, California, began gathering in the yard. The men were mostly motorcycle bikers with long hair and handlebar mustaches; a few were neo-Nazis with tattoos of swastikas. Together, they decided to strike against the blacks, who were forming their own militant group, called the Black Guerrilla Family, under the influence of the celebrated prison leader George Jackson. Initially, the whites called themselves the Diamond Tooth Gang, and as they roamed the yard they were unmistakable: pieces of glass embedded in their teeth glinted in the sunlight.
Before long, they had merged with other whites at San Quentin to form a single band: the Aryan Brotherhood. While there had always been cliques in prison, known as "tips," these men were now aligned by race and resorted to a kind of violence that had never been seen at San Quentin, a place that prisoners likened to "gladiator school." All sides, including the Latino gangs La Nuestra Familia and the Mexican Mafia, attacked each other with homemade knives that were honed from light fixtures and radio parts, and hidden in mattresses, air vents, and drainpipes. "Everything was seen through the delusional lens of race-everything," Edward Bunker, an inmate at the time, told me. (He went on to become a novelist, and appeared as Mr. Blue in "Reservoir Dogs.")
Most prison gangs tried to recruit "fish," the new and most vulnerable inmates. But according to interviews with former gang members-as well as thousands of pages of once classified F.B.I. reports, internal prison records, and court documents-the Aryan Brotherhood chose a radically different approach, soliciting only the most capable and violent. They were given a pledge:

An Aryan brother is without a care,
He walks where the weak and
heartless won't dare,
And if by chance he should stumble
and lose control,
His brothers will be there, to help
reach his goal,
For a worthy brother, no need is
too great,
He need not but ask, fulfillment's
his fate.
For an Aryan brother, death holds
no fear,
Vengeance will be his, through his
brothers still here.

Biography
David Grann, 38, has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since July 2003. His articles have covered everything from New York City's antiquated water tunnels to the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang to the search for the giant squid. His stories have also been chosen for many anthologies and have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The New Republic, where he is also a contributing editor. Before joining The New Yorker, Grann was a senior editor at The New Republic, and, from 1995 until 1996, executive editor of The Hill newspaper. Grann holds master's degrees in international relations from The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy as well as in creative writing from Boston University. He graduated from Connecticut College in 1989. He lives in New York with his family.

Articles
"The Brand"
How the Aryan Brotherhood became the most murderous prison gang in America.


The Michael Kelly Award site can be acessed at:

http://www.kellyaward.com/mk_award_popup/grann_d.html

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

CORSICANA DAILY SUN PUBLISHES A REBUTTAL TO PROSECUTOR JOHN JACKSON'S COLUMN DEFENDING CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM'S CONVICTION;

"IN CLAIMS (2) AND (3), MR. JACKSON DISPARAGES MR. WILLINGHAM’S INITIAL CLAIM THAT HE ATTEMPTED TO RESCUE HIS CHILDREN — A CLAIM THAT WAS COLLABORATED BY WITNESSES WHO WERE FIRST ON THE SCENE. IN FACT, MR. JACKSON BASELESSLY ATTACKS THE CREDIBILITY OF ONE OF THE NATION’S FOREMOST EXPERTS, DR. CRAIG BEYLER, BUT MOCKINGLY REFERRING TO “WELL-ESTABLISHED BURNS.” IN FACT, ACCORDING TO A DALLAS MORNING NEWS ARTICLE, DR. BEYLER WROTE THAT “EVIDENCE OF THE BURNS WILLINGHAM SUFFERED WERE WELL-DOCUMENTED, INCLUDING SCORCH MARKS ON HIS HANDS, SINGED HAIR ON HIS CHEST AND HEAD, AND A BURN ON HIS SHOULDER.” DR. BEYLER, ALONG WITH EIGHT OTHER TOP FORENSIC SCIENTISTS IN THE NATION RECRUITED TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ARSON."

VICTOR STEINBOK: GUEST COLUMN; THE CORSICANA DAILY SUN;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 found him 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."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victor Steinbok's commentary is significant because it appears in the Corsicana Daily Sun - the same paper that gave prosecutor Hohn Jackson the opportunity to defend Cameron Todd Willingham's murder conviction.

Steinbok is described as a "lawyer and independent researcher."

"I am very puzzled by Mr. Jackson’s column on the Cameron Todd Willingham’s case and by the Daily Sun’s willingness to print it," the commentary begins, under the heading, "No arson means no crime occurred."

"The column does not try to contradict the findings of the Texas Forensic Science Commission — it can’t," the commentary continues.

" Mr. Jackson is presenting the impossible case that even if Mr. Willingham could not have been convicted of arson — as there was no evidence to support the theory that the fire was set — he still should have been convicted of murder and executed. This claim is like trying to convict someone of murder by firearm when there is absolutely no evidence that he has ever held a gun in his life or ever tried to procure one.

But Mr. Jackson does not stop with the claim alone. He cites seven “facts” in support of the conviction. Unsurprisingly, none of the “facts” have any bearing on the case, even if Mr. Jackson reports them accurately. Mr. Jackson is using his status in the community and in the legal profession to protect a conviction that should not stand.

The first claim may be the strongest. If indeed Mr. Willingham had attempted to kill his children twice before the fire, it may go to establish a pattern. But such pattern is only valid if there is actual evidence that the children were murdered — no arson, no murder. To make matters worse, Mr. Jackson “supports” this claim with a reference to “attemp[ing] to abort both pregnancies”. He further buttresses it by pointing out, in claim (5), that Mr. Willingham was “a serial wife abuser” of “violent nature” and prone to “vicious attacks on animals.”

But in his attempt to paint a “violent sociopath,” Mr. Jackson arrives at a contradiction — if Mr. Willingham was impulsive and violent, murder by arson — which requires premeditation and careful planning — would have been quite uncharacteristic. Mr. Jackson was a prosecutor on the case, not an expert forensic psychologist. The conclusions of claims (1) and (5) are irrelevant and nonsensical.

In claims (2) and (3), Mr. Jackson disparages Mr. Willingham’s initial claim that he attempted to rescue his children — a claim that was collaborated by witnesses who were first on the scene. In fact, Mr. Jackson baselessly attacks the credibility of one of the nation’s foremost experts, Dr. Craig Beyler, but mockingly referring to “well-established burns.” In fact, according to a Dallas Morning News article, Dr. Beyler wrote that “evidence of the burns Willingham suffered were well-documented, including scorch marks on his hands, singed hair on his chest and head, and a burn on his shoulder.” Dr. Beyler, along with eight other top forensic scientists in the nation recruited to investigate the case came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of arson.

But even if we except that the evidence in (2) and (3) suggests, as some neighbors had claimed, that Mr. Willingham did not sufficiently attempt to rescue his children from the raging fire, this would merely paint him as a less foolishly heroic figure than he tried to portray himself initially. This may be evidence of humiliation and despondency over the inability to save the children, but not of guilt. There can be no doubt that Mr. Willingham attempted to rush into the house after the firefighters arrived, which required first a neighbor, then a firefighter to restrain him.

Claim (4) concerns the use of a polygraph. Polygraph examination results or a refusal to submit to such may not be used as evidence of guilt in any US courtroom. The claim of a vulgar and insulting outburst that accompanied Mr. Willingham’s refusal is the worst kind of hearsay.

The same is true of claim (6). We have no idea why Mr. Willingham might have said what is claimed, what he actually said or if he said it at all. And, again, if there is no arson, there is no reason to suspect anything nefarious behind the statement even if he did make it.

Finally, claim (7) — the a refrigerator was blocking the rear exit — has no bearing on the murder conviction. If anything, it may suggest a path to prosecution on negligence — one never taken or considered. But does Mr. Jackson actually suggest that the refrigerator was placed at the back door specifically in order to block the exit path for the one- and two-year old children? According to Willingham’s testimony, the children were behind a far more benign child-proof barrier and could not have reached the rear exit even had they tried. Negligently creating a hazard that blocks an escape route is not the same as setting fire to the house.

It is also telling that Mr. Jackson did not use the alleged jail-house confession to support his case — after he cited it in a number of interviews with other publications, it has been pointed out that the general reliability of jail-house snitches is less than stellar. Given the circumstances and the character of the witness, the reliability of the testimony, in this case, is at the lower end.

In his column, Mr. Jackson wrote that Mr. Willingham was “charged as a multiple child murder, and not an arson-murder to achieve capital status.” But this is meaningless. The method of killing of which Mr. Willingham was convicted was arson. It does not matter if arson was not the aggravating factor in promoting the charge to capital status. If there is no arson, there cannot be a murder. And the TFSC finding is unambiguous — there is absolutely no evidence of arson at the Willingham home. No one is claiming that we know with certainty that Mr. Willingham was innocent — but we do know that he should not have been convicted for causing death through arson..."


The commentary can be found at:

—————http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/local_story_246212744.html

Other rebuttals to Jackson's column;

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=3600356645951441150

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

CARLOS DE LUCA CASE: (1); ECHOES OF CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM TRAGEDY: YET ANOTHER INNOCENT MAN EXECUTED BY TEXAS? TRIBUNE SERIES; INTRODUCTION;

The Chicago Tribune has distinguished itself with its stories on Carlos De Luna - a man who was executed by the State of Texas for the murder of Gas Station clerk Wanda Lopez;

The Tribune, which also distinguished itself in its investigative reporting on the Cameron Todd Willingham case, published a three-part special report - to be run over the next three posts on this Blog - which suggests that De Luna died for another man's crime.

(Tribune reporter's Steve Mills and Maurice Possley reported both the Willingham and De Luna stories;)

For now, here is the Tribune's introduction to the special report - published on June 24, 2006;

"Since the U.S. Supreme Court approved the reinstatement of the death penalty 30 years ago, there has yet to be an instance of DNA proving that an innocent person was executed," the introduction begins;

"As more cases are re-examined, though, doubt is being cast on a number of executions--especially those in Texas, where the criminal justice system has executed more people than any other state," it continues;

"The Tribune has been investigating criminal justice issues in depth since 1999. Its examination of flaws in Illinois' death penalty system helped prompt a moratorium on executions in the state.

The paper also has exposed problems in Texas' death penalty system. In 2004, it revealed the faulty science behind the arson investigation that led to the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. Last year, a Houston Chronicle investigation cast serious doubt on the evidence that sent Ruben Cantu to the death chamber.

The Tribune learned of Carlos De Luna, who was executed in 1989 for a murder in Corpus Christi, after James Liebman, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York City, contacted the newspaper.

Liebman has co-authored studies that found high rates of court reversals due to serious error in capital cases. In subsequent research with students on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, he came across the De Luna case. Liebman asked a private investigator to go to Corpus Christi and look into De Luna's claim during his trial that another man was the real killer.

A woman told the investigator the other man had bragged about committing the murder. Believing De Luna's execution was worth a deeper look, Liebman contacted the Tribune.

"This was no longer a legal or academic enterprise," he said.""

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM CASE: PART SEVEN; ARSON INVESTIGATIONS COME UNDER FIRE; IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE; REPORTER SUE RUSSELL: MILLER-MCCUNE MAGAZINE;

On February 17 February, 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham, 36, was executed by lethal injection in Huntsville, Texas for the murder of his three children.

The charge was laid in connection with a fire which occurred on 23 December 1991, at his Corsicana home in which his three children -- 2-year-old Amber Kuykendall and 1-year-old twins Karmon and Kameron Willingham, died of smoke inhalation.

Strong doubts have hovered over Willingham's execution since the Chicago Tribunal ran an investigation of the prosecution which made a compelling case that the fire blaze was an accident;

In a recent development, the Texas Forensic Science Commission hired an expert to review the evidence - in what has been called "the first state-sanctioned inquiry into a Texas execution;"

This Blog will monitor developments in the Willingham case - in view of the fact that Larry Swearingen remains on death row in the State of Texas which apparently boasts that it has never executed an innocent man;

Four pathologists have taken issue with the pathological evidence called by prosecutor's at Swearingen's trial - and contend that the scientific evidence in the case indicates that he could not have committed the crime because he was locked up in prison when it was committed;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHILE IT'S TOO LATE FOR WILLINGHAM, THE NEW YORK INNOCENCE PROJECT WAS GALVANIZED TO CREATE AN ARSON REVIEW COMMITTEE CORRALLING FIVE TOP EXPERTS, INCLUDING LENTINI AND VETERAN INVESTIGATOR DOUGLAS CARPENTER, TO COMPARE WILLINGHAM'S CASE TO THAT OF ERNEST WILLIS, A FELLOW TEXAN CONVICTED ON SIMILAR EVIDENCE OF SETTING A FIRE THAT KILLED TWO SLEEPING WOMEN IN A HOUSE HE WAS STAYING IN. AFTER 17 YEARS IN PRISON AND ONLY MONTHS AFTER WILLINGHAM'S EXECUTION, WILLIS WAS EXONERATED AND RELEASED.

THE ARSON REVIEW COMMITTEE'S 2006 REPORT ECHOED HURST IN DISCREDITING ALL THE "ARSON INDICATORS" FOUND BY DEPUTY STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANUEL VASQUEZ AT THE WILLINGHAM FIRE. PATTERNS VASQUEZ ATTRIBUTED TO IGNITABLE LIQUID OR ACCELERANT, IT CONCLUDED, COULD NOT BE USED TO DISTINGUISH ARSON FROM AN ACCIDENTAL FIRE.

REPORTER SUE RUSSELL; MILLER-MCCUNE MAGAZINE;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journalist Sue Russell has written an important article which provides an illuminating context for the Cameron Todd Willingham case by highlighting commonly used forensic indicators of arson - which now have been discovered to be flawed;

Russell's work has appeared internationally in such publications as the Washington Post, New Scientist and The Independent. She is the author of Lethal Intent, a biography of executed serial killer Aileen Wuornos.

The article, headed "Arson Convictions, Fire Investigations Feel the Heat:
As decades of flawed and unscientific fire investigation techniques call arson convictions into question, new recipes emerge for a system-wide overhaul," appeared in the February 7, 2009 edition of Miller-McClune Magazine;

It bears the sub-heading: "Discredited traditions and bad science have led many fire investigations to unjustifiably point to arson."

(Miller-McCune magazine, launched in 2008, is published in print and online, by the nonprofit Miller McCune Center for Research, Media and Public Policy, with support from SAGE publications;)

"Phoenix attorney Larry Hammond knows just how much is riding on the paperwork on his desk," the article begins;

"The chairman of the Arizona Justice Project, he is fighting hard to overturn the conviction of Louis C. Taylor, imprisoned 38 years ago for intentionally setting a catastrophic fire at Tucson's landmark Pioneer Hotel that ultimately killed 29 people," it continues;

"Ever since Hammond first studied the case in 1999, he's been convinced that the blaze was not arson.

Taylor, now in his 50s but then a 16-year-old petty thief known to hang around pool halls, claimed he slipped into the hotel that December night to cadge free food and drinks in the ballroom. After the fire broke out, he was spotted nearby with matches in his pocket.

Unfortunately for Taylor, 1970 was the dark ages of fire investigation. Arson investigator Cyrillis W. Holmes Jr. found no tangible evidence of how the fire started, yet he divined from burn patterns and fire debris that at least two fires had been deliberately set about 60 feet apart in the fourth-floor hallways.

Multiple points of origin are a powerful indicator of arson — if they're real. But old-time fire investigation was a mix of old wives' tales, myths and oral hand-me-down wisdom with no science behind it. Fire debris was read like tea leaves. And marks on floors and carpets called "pour patterns" were routinely interpreted as points of origin and cited as evidence of an arsonist pouring liquid accelerants like gasoline.

Since then, science has rendered such "arson indicators" obsolete and convictions based upon them questionable.
It is one thing to suspect that fallacious evidence helped convict someone like Taylor, quite another to secure a new trial or exoneration because of "new" scientific evidence. But Larry Hammond isn't cowed by a tough fight, and buoyed by a "breathtaking" report from renowned independent fire scientist John Lentini, he's readying a petition to file in state court.

He knows he has a tough road ahead.

"Our legal system is designed to foreclose post-conviction review," he noted, "and it does frustrate, and has frustrated, many of these cases." Attorney Walter Reaves, who works with the Innocence Project of Texas, agreed: "You have to convince a court that it is (newly discovered evidence), and then you have to convince them to actually listen and hear it."

DNA is the undisputed gold standard for exonerations, a virtually unassailable magic bullet. But arson convictions are a new frontier for exoneration work, and they are qualitatively different. If you find a bullet or knife in a dead man's back, no one disputes that a crime has taken place. Fires, however, are not so simple.

Discredited Evidence
In America, while suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty, frequently fires are not presumed accidental until proved to be arson. All fires necessitate an extra investigative step — an independent, science-based determination of arson to first ascertain that a crime even took place.

Civil cases often bifurcate issues of liability and damages, making the jury's first task to determine if a fire was intentionally set. Criminal arson cases seem to cry out for the same approach, given that a determination of arson alone can never definitively tie a person to a crime scene or unequivocally reveal a perpetrator's identity.

Yet any serious proposal for a similar system would be met, Lentini surmised, with "universal screaming and gnashing of teeth," and allegations that criminals were being allowed to slip through the net.

Gnashing teeth notwithstanding, the need for reform is critical. Lentini cites figures of 75,000 suspicious fires every year — "That's 75,000 chances to get it wrong," as he told CNN's Anderson Cooper.

According to a 2002 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, in just half the states in the U.S., more than 5,000 people are in prison for arson crimes. Arson is the only crime for which someone can receive the death penalty based on the testimony of an expert witness whose education ended with high school. And although no one spoken to for this article would hazard a specific estimate of how many innocents are imprisoned on arson convictions, answers ranged from "dozens to hundreds" to "tons."

If ever a case embodied the disastrous consequences of the obsolete beliefs about fires, it is Cameron Todd Willingham's. The Texan was convicted in 1991 of the arson murders of his three children, all under age 3. In 2004, Willingham's appellate lawyer — Walter Reaves — commissioned a review by chemist Gerald Hurst, a key player in the fire investigation wars. Hurst's powerful report debunked all 20 so-called "arson indicators" used to convict Willingham. He was executed anyway.

While it's too late for Willingham, the New York Innocence Project was galvanized to create an Arson Review Committee corralling five top experts, including Lentini and veteran investigator Douglas Carpenter, to compare Willingham's case to that of Ernest Willis, a fellow Texan convicted on similar evidence of setting a fire that killed two sleeping women in a house he was staying in. After 17 years in prison and only months after Willingham's execution, Willis was exonerated and released.

The Arson Review Committee's 2006 report echoed Hurst in discrediting all the "arson indicators" found by deputy state fire marshal Manuel Vasquez at the Willingham fire. Patterns Vasquez attributed to ignitable liquid or accelerant, it concluded, could not be used to distinguish arson from an accidental fire.

The report is now under review by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, whose chair, Sam Bassett, told Miller-McCune.com that it has voted to hire an expert to lead them in their investigation. The commission is charged by statute with conducting investigations. If they concur with all the other experts, they could make recommendations for further review or even for system reform.

"I believe it would be within our purview to comment upon any broader issues such as the possibility of misconduct or professional negligence in other cases," Bassett wrote in an e-mail. "However, that is dependent first upon our finding that misconduct or professional negligence occurred in the Willis/Willingham case. Until we receive feedback from our expert, the Commission will remain neutral on this issue and there will be no further comment until such time as we issue our report."
The possibility of misconduct and professional negligence?

"Boy, there's a political football for you," Hurst said skeptically, imagining the ramifications of an official admission that an innocent man was executed.

Carpenter is more optimistic. "I'd certainly hope something tangible comes from the process," he said. "I think they're taking it seriously."

Yet Reaves, the attorney, worries that the commission's very review could do more harm than good: "I just have a hard time envisioning a state sponsored commission coming down and saying, 'Oops, we killed a guy that we shouldn't have killed." He predicted that it will conclude — wrongly — that Willingham was an isolated incident, or a problem that has been remedied and won't happen again.

Bringing in Real Science
Larry Hammond preferred instead to pin his optimism to an imminent National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science reform. He expects it to "trash some sacred cows of forensic science," with arson at the top of the list. Perhaps, the most hopeful and immediately pragmatic agent of change, however, is the Arson Screening Project launched in July 2008 at The Center for Modern Forensic Practice at John Jay College in New York, in consultation with the New York Innocence Project.

It will step into uncharted territory by assessing the scope of arson convictions based on accidental fires. It will also triage meritorious cases for review by the affiliated Arson Review Group of fire scientists, led by Lentini, and eventually will suggest a reform plan. Its director James Doyle said he will use his precious experts judiciously, weeding out time-waster cases where, say, a debunked "arson indicator" meets "a guy found on the crime scene with his eyeb rows burned off and a gasoline can in his hand."

Wrongful convictions are only half the story. Only a multifaceted approach can overhaul a system where, for example, so many fire investigators making judgments of arson have little or no scientific training, and where discredited arson evidence is still presented in courts.

Science officially staked its claim in fire investigation in 1992 with the ground-breaking, peer-reviewed National Fire Protection Association code NFPA 921, the industry standard. By then, a cadre of forward-thinkers like Lentini, Hurst, Carpenter and John DeHaan, author of the Kirk's Fire Investigation handbook, doggedly had been using science with full-scale recreations, test burns and laboratory experiments to study fire's behavior. Incredibly, until then, no one had actually compared the aftermaths of accidental and intentionally set fires.
Arson Convictions, Fire Investigations Feel the Heat
As decades of flawed and unscientific fire investigation techniques call arson convictions into question, new recipes emerge for a system-wide overhaul.

Discredited traditions and bad science have led many fire investigations to unjustifiably point to arson.

Industry acceptance of NFPA 921 proved glacially slow. The emerging scientific information was rejected, disputed and dismissed. Tensions ran high between old guard fire investigators and the science guys. DeHaan can recall receiving hate mail. Old-school investigators weren't bad people, though, just working with bad information. And some defensiveness about potentially having had a hand in wrongful convictions was certainly understandable. Less easy to understand: those diehards still resisting science-based knowledge 16 years later.

In 2006, investigator Cyrillis Holmes told the Arizona Daily Star that he stands by his original opinions about the Pioneer Hotel fire. But insurance investigator Marshall Smyth, who also worked on the case, has since likened himself and Holmes back then to members of a black magic society. "If that fire were to occur again today, there's no way — there's no way — anyone could prove it was arson," he told the paper.

The stark contrast in opinions is emblematic of the split in the field of fire investigations.

Also in 2006, The News-Herald of Ohio reported that Ralph Dolence, a retired investigator then teaching at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, dismissed the "new" arson science as wild nonsense, claiming that investigators like Lentini "muddy the waters" of good investigations. Lentini issued a swift, no-nonsense rebuttal. Still, such accusations seem well past their sell-by dates.

Yet several key players say that finally divesting the shrinking faction of holdouts of their misguided faith in arson indicators like "crazed glass," "alligator blisters" and "concrete spalling" (see sidebar) remains a work in progress.

"I think it certainly is still a problem; I don't think it's as widespread as it used to be," said Bobby Schaal, a 22-year veteran of the ATF speaking only in his capacity as incoming first vice president of the International Association of Arson Investigators. But investigators, lawyers and scientists say that old investigation errors are still being made, and old myths are still being heard in courtrooms.

Common themes emerge when discussing reforms. One hot topic is the routine dependence on negative corpus evidence —simply put, investigators rule out electrical faults and exploding coffee pots, for example, rather than rule in evidence of how a fire did in fact start. So rather than a more accurate description of "cause undetermined," fires are often called arsons based on investigation by exclusion.

To veteran investigator Patrick Kennedy, that practice is unethical and immoral. "I don't know what it is, so it must be arson?" he said. "That is a pretty poor reason to kill somebody."

Prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges could help matters by becoming a safety net of sorts and approaching findings of arson with a healthy dash of skepticism. "I think that the more educated attorneys become and the more honest attorneys become, they can vet out these bad experts," said Schaal, who believes that once they're informed, seeing terms like "spalling" or "crazed glass" in a report should immediately raise a red flag.

To keep flawed evidence out of courts, Hurst also advocates implementing a system of "devil's advocate peer review" in which experts review arson-related evidence pretrial, probably volunteers working via existing regional committees. "If (investigators) start getting their cases rejected," he explains, "or if they're forced back to the drawing board, it will make them much more cautious in making those cases in the first place because they want it to pass peer review."

Trial transcripts and documents could be scanned by computer for distinctive terminology, like "alligator charring." Hurst predicts that with computer scanning, "You're going to find cases like Ed Graf's where old wives' tales will just pop up one after another, just bang, bang, bang." (He recently reviewed the 1988 case of Ed Graf — convicted of burning his two stepsons alive in a shed — for Walter Reaves and declares it "a real stinker, another Willingham.")

The most contentious areas of reform pit the science-qualified experts against the true believers in the superiority of on-the-job experience. "If I have my dream," Patrick Kennedy said, "some day, just like lawyers, you won't be able to enter a courtroom unless you've got a license and a college degree."

And those who embrace science are looking to policymakers and professional societies to raise the industry bar on training, certifying and licensing fire investigators. "I think that the IAAI, the NFPA, the NAFI (National Association of Fire Investigators), anybody should call for the proper credentialing of fire investigators," said the IAAI's Schaal. Lentini suggests all investigators should be certified not by their employers but by a neutral third party like the IAAI or NAFI. And right now, many U.S. fire investigators don't have either of those national organizations' certifications.

Unlike firefighters and public sector investigators, private fire investigators in most states need licenses, and those licenses are covered by private investigator statutes. "They are bogus," Lentini said, "but convey a state credential to someone who has demonstrated a clean criminal history, has filled out a form and sent in a set of fingerprints along with an application and some money. No state license currently requires that a licensed fire investigator actually have any skills in fire investigation."

Practical Experience Plus Diplomas
Certifications and licenses aside, there is a school of thought that only scientists or the scientifically trained should make arson determinations. To understand concepts like thermodynamics and heat transfer, investigators need math, chemistry and physics.

"Fire investigators are largely ex-cops, military, firemen, that sort of thing," Hurst noted. "They don't feel like they need any of this fancy science stuff." He worries that, "no matter how clearly you try to explain these scientific principles to people who are not used to thinking scientifically, you cannot do it."

Brad Hamil, a veteran investigator who long worked with California's San Bernardino Fire Department and is currently second vice president of the California Conference of Arson Investigators, has a different perspective. He greatly values law enforcement training and experience but, "I would say that, yes, there has to be some science in your work," he said. He'd advise newcomers to arm themselves with a bachelor's degree. They won't be any smarter about fire, he said, "but when you're on the stand, 'Well, I have a B.S. degree in science.' Cool. Sounds good to the jury."

Lentini said we've got to live with the fire investigators we have while ensuring the next generation is properly trained. "Certainly, the state legislators should say that people who are going to investigate fires should be qualified by education to do it, and be qualified by experience. They hire firemen," he said. "Eventually, everyone who does this work should be able to document post-secondary education in chemistry and physics, at least at the freshman (101) level."

Required, science-based education may be closer than many realize. If the latest version of the standard professional requirement for fire investigators, NFPA 1033 — compliance with which is required for both the national organizations' certifications — is accepted by local jurisdictions or fire departments, it could go a long way toward keeping unqualified contenders out of the fire investigation business.

Its Trojan horse message, a list of science topics in which an investigator needs training to qualify, could be, said Patrick Kennedy, who sits on NFPA committees, a big surprise to the non-science-based folks who will find that they can no longer qualify under 1033.

"They're going to have to have continuing education in those topics and be able to prove it," he said. He makes no apology for raising the bar. "The problem of people losing their homes or livelihoods in a fire, then being accused of arson with no good reason is," Kennedy said, "the cancer on our industry, and that has to go."

Lentini, who had hoped to see a requirement in 1033 for nonemployer certification within five years, sees progress: "When fire chiefs see that, they're going to say, 'Shit, this means I need a college grad, or at least I need someone who's got some college in science.'"

Until requirements for fire investigators rise across the board, however, results will be mixed. Hamil worked a case with an investigator who made a wrong call on a fire cause. After he admitted to having had only one class in investigations, Hamil reached out, offering to arrange some training options. "I said, 'Call me, I'm the roundtable coordinator for the California conference of fire investigators in my area. We put on training all the time,'" he recalled. "And the phone, to date, has not rung."

Douglas Carpenter is pushing ahead on mapping out a concept for his vision for a national curriculum for fire investigation, ideally a four-year course. That would be expensive. But cities and states can get creative about bringing more science into their fire investigation services.

In December, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that Cincinnati Police Chief Thomas Streicher Jr., who has a Chief's Scholar Program, sent three officers on scholarship for a one-year master's program at the University of Cincinnati. Surely, appropriate candidates in fire investigation jobs could be put in similar programs. Other affordable options include the IAAI's regional training and online programs at CFITrainer.net, some of which are free.

The fire investigation field is ablaze with ideas despite a dearth of mechanisms with which to make them a reality. And moving forward, many will be looking to the Arson Screening Project for progressive strategies. James Doyle can only aspire to the achievements of the New York Innocence Project. Meanwhile, possible innocents, like Louis Taylor, caught up in flawed determinations of arson are never far from his mind. "Thought has to be given, I think," Doyle said, "to doing something besides saying to prisoners, 'Well, you were born too soon.

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;