Today's Houston Chronicle carries the latest column by Rick Casey, "Can e-mail be saved by deleting it?"
A couple of weeks ago I sent a request to the Texas Forensic Commission under the Public Information Act for any documents or e-mails regarding two new policies put into place by the commission's controversial new chairman, John Bradley.
A quick refresher: Bradley is the Williamson County district attorney appointed Sept. 30 by Gov. Rick Perry to replace the previous chairman. This was just days before the commission was to discuss in open session a report from a national expert saying that the arson evidence that led a jury to convict and sentence to death the late Cameron Todd Willingham was grievously flawed. Bradley's first act was to cancel the meeting.
The first new policy I asked about requires all members to refer reporters to Leigh Tomlin, the commission coordinator, who would take the requests to Chairman Bradley.
I received a response with a promptness that is rare for governmental bodies.
“… (T)he commission does not have any communications responsive to your request,” wrote Tomlin.
I wasn't surprised. Her answer merely confirmed the existence of the other policy about which I was seeking information: That members should destroy all e-mails regarding commission business.
I know that because I have a copy of an e-mail (now apparently destroyed) from Tomlin to commission members dated Oct. 30. It asks them to forward “any and all communications” regarding the Willingham matter to her. The e-mail closed: “Also, as a reminder of our e-mail retention policy, please delete all commission correspondence. If you feel there is something that needs to be saved, forward it to my office.”
In two other e-mails, the first on Oct. 6 and the second on Nov. 5, Tomlin says:
“Please also keep in mind that any communications regarding the commission's activities should be delivered through the commission chair, Mr. Bradley.”
And: “I also would like to remind everyone of our media policy. Please continue to forward any media inquiries to my office.”
The commissioners — seven scientists, one defense attorney and Chairman Bradley — did not vote on those policies. They were dictated by Chairman Bradley.
The reason I know that is that they have not met in the two months since Chairman Bradley was appointed.
What once had been a collaborative body, in which all decisions were discussed and made in open sessions, seems now to be a commission in which serious matters concerning public communication and document retention are made by an all-powerful chairman.
And:
Some may also be at least a little annoyed that a man whom they haven't met, who has demonstrated little understanding of the work they've done over the past few years, is telling them they're not allowed to speak to the public about that work.
Chairman Bradley told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram through an e-mail, that he “simply seeks to make sure that all relevant information is saved at a single location.”
That is patently absurd. You don't need to be a scientist to understand that deleting e-mails doesn't save them at a central location.
AP reports, "Jurors defend verdict that led to Texas execution," by Jeff Carlton, via Google News.
David Martin is sickened by the suggestion that Texas executed an innocent man when Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death for setting a fire that killed his three children.
The veteran defense attorney represented Willingham at trial. He looked at all the evidence. And he has no doubt that his client deserved to die.
"I never think about him, but I do think about those year-old babies crawling around in an inferno with their flesh melting off their bodies," Martin said. "I think that he was guilty, that he deserved death and that he got death."
The 2004 execution, however, didn't end questions about the case. Fire investigator experts hired first by The Innocence Project and later by the Texas Forensic Science Commission concluded the original finding of arson was seriously flawed.
Without that finding, prosecutors have admitted it would have been hard to win a death sentence against Willingham.
But the reports have done nothing to change the minds of Martin and four jurors reached by The Associated Press in recent weeks, who all remain convinced Willingham set the blaze 18 years ago that killed 2-year-old Amber and 1-year-old twins Karmon and Kameron. They never heard from Willingham, who declined to take the stand in his own defense.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, called 17 witnesses, including the only experts to testify — both fire investigators who told jurors arson was to blame.
"All you can go on when you are on a jury is what is put before you," said one juror, Dorenda Dechaume, 39. "I stand by my vote — guilty."
Earlier coverage of the Todd Willingham case begins here. All coverage is also available through the Todd Willingham category index.
The Beyler report prepared for the Forensic Science Commission is here in Adobe .pdf format. David Grann's New Yorker article is noted here. The Innocence Project's Todd Willingham resource page provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents. Steve Mills and Maurice Possley first reported on the case in a 2004 Chicago Tribune series on junk science. The December 9, 2004 report was titled,"Man executed on disproved forensics."
Comments