A look into junk science

On the way home from the office the other night I caught the current episode of the Murderish podcast - "Lime Street Fire." The episode concerns an arson investigation in Jacksonville. Jami Rice also covered the Cameron Todd Willingham case earlier this year.

The episode is important because it looks at the evolution of arson investigation. As anyone who has looked into arson cases knows, most of the knowledge an arson investigator has is what has been passed down over the years. There are a number of old saws they pull out of the bag such as pour pattern and v-pattern which they use to peg arson as a cause of a fire.

This case is remarkable because fire experts were brought in to conduct tests to determine whether (1) whether these pour-patterns or v-patterns had any real meaning and (2) whether the fire could have started the way the suspect said it did.

The results were astounding. The investigators found an identical home to the one that burned, set it up just like the home that got burned (down to the brand of furniture) and set it on fire -- not once, but twice. What they found was that the presence of v-patterns had nothing to do with where a fire was started and many so-called pour patterns were the result of flashover.

This episode also illustrates the problem with the introduction of new "forensic sciences" in criminal cases. Over on the civil side judges have no problem deeming scientific evidence inadmissible after Daubert  and Frye hearings. In the criminal courts, however, judges have never been all that keen on performing their gatekeeper roles with regard to scientific evidence.

For far too long the state has been able to introduce so-called scientific evidence without regard as to whether the new science has been thoroughly tested. We've seen bullet alloy analysis, tire track analysis, bite mark analysis and arson investigation, just to name a few, that have all been debunked for the junk they were. It is frightening that judges seem to be more concerned with saving insurance companies money than they do in protecting the rights of criminal defendants.

Death of an innocent

"I don't care how many degrees you may have. How many books you may have written. This was a set fire." -- Douglass Fogg, Assistant Fire Chief (Corsicana, Texas)

This blythe acceptance of junk science is the very reason there need to be strong standards and guidelines in forensic science. There is far too much "science" that can't be tested that is being used in courtrooms across this state, and across this country, to convict people of crimes they may or may not have committed.

In Corsicana, Texas, it was used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed by the State of Texas for a crime he very likely didn't commit. The Fair-Haired One had the opportunity to stay the execution so that new evidence could be reviewed - but, bowing to political pressure, he declined. Gov. Rick Perry's legacy will be that he authorized the killing of an innocent man.



When you go to your doctor, you want to know that he has been trained, that he has a medical degree and that he keeps up with the latest developments in his field. Would you trust your health to someone who just had a "gut feeling" about what was wrong with you?

Click here for more information about Frontline's presentation of "Death by Fire."

Flawed science

Yesterday I wrote about the back-door machinations over at the Texas Forensic Science Commission and an update from their meeting in Houston. The Houston Chronicle noted that a committee made up of members of the commission found that the "experts" who testified that Cameron Willingham set the fire that killed his children weren't negligent and did not exhibit any misconduct during their investigation or testimony in the case.

Now that's all well and good, but the issue isn't whether Deputy State Fire Marshall Manual Vasquez was negligent in his investigation or cooked the books -- the issue is whether the opinions to which Mr. Vasquez testified to at Mr. Willingham's trial were based on good science.

Texas Rule of Evidence 702 states that:

"If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

Rule 104 makes the judge the so-called gatekeeper when it comes to scientific evidence at trial. The judge makes this determination based on a set of factors laid out in Kelly v. State, 824 SW2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Scientific evidence is admissible if (1) the underlying theory is valid, (2) the technique applying the theory is valid and (3) the technique was applied properly on the time in question.

So the question with regard to the Willingham case isn't whether Mr. Vasquez acted negligently or in bad faith when conducting his investigation or rendering his opinion; the question is whether the his opinion was based on a valid scientific theory. And that is what the Texas Forensic Science Commission needs to focus on instead of covering up the truth in order to keep Rick Perry from having to get a real job.

And this is what Mr. John Bradley doesn't understand. To Mr. Bradley the question of whether scientific evidence is admissible comes down to whether or not the evidence is beneficial to the state's case, not whether the evidence is based on solid science.

Burying the truth like a bone

The blow-dried one, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, is willing to do whatever he can to erase the stink of an innocent man being executed under his watch -- and his lapdog, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, is doing just as his master commands.

This morning in Houston, the Texas Forensic Science Commission met with Mr. Bradley's move to bury the Cameron Willingham matter heading the agenda. Bradley has prepared a memorandum that would remove the Commission's authority to investigate the Willingham matter any further. According to the Houston Chronicle's Rick Casey, the memo is unsigned and undated but states it was drafted, edited and approved by Mr. Bradley and two other members of the Commission - one of whom, Lance Evans, is a defense attorney and member of TCDLA.

Ever since questions arose regarding the evidence the state used to convict, and later murder, Cameron Willingham, Gov. Goodhair has done everything in his power to make the elephant in the corner disappear. The last thing Perry wants to have to do is answer questions about the Willingham case during the fall campaign for the Governor's Mansion.

The governor's toady, Mr. Bradley, has been only too glad to do Perry's bidding as he continues to disregard his ethical duty as a prosecutor to see that justice is done.

UPDATE:

Based on this Houston Chronicle report, Gov. Perry will be a happy camper tonight as four members of a committee found "insufficient evidence" to suggest that arson investigators were negligent or committed acts of misconduct in their investigation.

Members of a commission reviewing the disputed conclusion that a Texas man committed arson, which led to his 2004 execution for the deaths of his three children, say they do not believe fire investigators in the case committed negligence or misconduct.

Members of the four-person panel within the Texas Forensic Science Commission that is reviewing the probe said Friday their initial findings conclude there is insufficient evidence to establish whether there was negligence or misconduct on the part of the arson investigators. The investigators concluded Cameron Todd Willingham set a 1991 fire at his family's Corsicana home that killed his three young daughters.

A final report on the probe was set to be presented at a commission meeting later this year.

Gov. Perry had the opportunity to discover the truth in the Willingham matter but, instead, chose political expediency. What does this say about the other men sitting in Texas prisons based on testimony of junk scientists?

This is the best that Perry can do?

The headline screams that Cameron Willingham confessed to setting the fire that killed his children and led to his murder at the hands of the State of Texas. However, upon closer inspection, this "confession" dissipates in the air as you look into it.

It turns out that the affiant is the brother of Mr. Willingham's former wife. According to Ronnie Kuykendall, his sister, Cameron Willingham's ex-wife, cried as she told him that Mr. Willingham confessed to setting the fire.

So, the best the well-coiffed governor's minions can come up with to justify his refusal to halt the murder of Mr. Willingham is an affidavit containing hearsay within hearsay. Torpedoing the forensic committee's investigation into the junk science propounded by arson investigators and releasing worthless affidavits - how's that for a campaign slogan?

I guess it beats "I killed an innocent man -- Vote for me!"

Where there's smoke...

The ousted chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, Sam Bassett, says that lawyers representing the blow-dried one, Gov. Rick Perry, twice tried to pressure him into dropping the panel's investigation of the Cameron Willingham case. Mr. Bassett was so concerned about the pressure being placed on him that he consulted with an aide to Texas State Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston).

Mr. Bassett says that when the governor's attorneys, David Cabrales and Mary Ann Wiley, met with him in February 2009 they told him the commission was wasting taxpayers' money examining old cases. He said he was told the commission should be more "forward thinking."

Sen. Whitmire has said he will push Williamson County D.A. John Bradley, the new commission chair, to continue the panel's investigation into the Willingham case.

It would appear that Gov. Perry is running scared. How would it look to the voters if it turned out Texas murdered an innocent man on his watch?

Governor appoints new members to forensic science panel

The well-coiffed one, Texas Governor Rick Perry got around to appointing two new members to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, just a little over a week after causing the panel to scuttle a session that many believe would be critical of the arson investigation that resulted in the state-sponsored killing of Cameron Willingham. (See "Forensic panel cancels meeting after Gov. Perry dismisses three members.")

Joining Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley and Norma Farley, chief pathologist for Cameron and Hidalgo Counties are Fort Worth criminal defense attorney Lance Evans and Randall Evans, the head of the Bexar County Medical Examiner's Office.

When asked why Perry chose to replace four committee members, his spokesman replied that their terms were up and the governor wanted someone else on the committee.

No word on when the hearing on arson investigation, originally set for October 2, will be rescheduled.

Is the State of Texas guilty of murder?

In 2004, Cameron Willingham, a Corsicana auto mechanic convicted of setting the fire that killed his 1-year-old twins and 2-year-old stepdaughter, was executed by the State of Texas. Today, 17 years after the fire, there are questions regarding his conviction.

Mr. Willingham went to his death proclaiming his innocence. Rick Perry, the Texas governor, and state judges, ignored a report from Mr. Gerald Hurst, a prominent fire scientist, that questioned the conclusions of the state's expert witness at Mr. Willingham's trial.

At Willingham's trial, Deputy State Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez, now deceased, testified that he concluded the fire was set deliberately due to "pour patterns" and "puddle configurations" on the floor. He also testified that his determination that the fire had originated in three locations solidified his opinion that the deadly fire was the result of arson. He also accused Mr. Willingham of lying to him during the investigation.

As a result of an investigation by The Innocence Project, a panel of national fire experts stated that the expert testimony in Mr. Willingham's trial was based on outdated and invalid investigative methods.

Mr. Alan Levy, a member of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, created in response to the scandal involving the Houston Police Department Crime Lab, told Mr. Gabriel Oberfield of The Innnocence Project that the state of science regarding arson was "dismal." Regardless of the standards at the time of Mr. Willingham's conviction, the techniques and methods used by forensic experts had improved by the time of his execution.

Investigators from The Innocence Project concluded that the evidence found at the site was consistent with a "flashover" caused by the intense heat inside the house at the time of the fire. Investigators also found that Mr. Vasquez' contention that the fire had started in three separate locations was incorrect -- the locations Mr. Vasquez spoke of were contiguous. The investigators also contend that the only way to determine if an accelerant was used is to conduct laboratory tests on residue from the scene -- something that was not done during the initial police investigation.

John Jackson, the Navarro County District Attorney at the time of Mr. Willingham's trial, is now a state district judge and offered no comment to Mr. Allan Turner, a reporter for The Houston Chronicle. Mr. Jackson had an ethical duty as a prosecutor to seek justice -- that is, a legal duty, not to sentence someone to die for a crime he did not commit. Employing junk science to obtain a conviction is a breach of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Texas Forensic Science Committee decided not to hire an investigator to look into the Willingham case at this time but they did ask the State Fire Marshal's Office to prepare a response to The Innocence Project's allegations.

I have little doubt that Mr. Willingham was not the first innocent citizen executed by the Texas death machine -- and he may not be the last. It is time to put an end to state-sanctioned murder because one you've put that needle in the vein, it's too late to say "Oops!"