CNN posts, "Texas state board says arson investigators used flawed science."
A Texas state board said Friday that arson investigators used flawed science but were not negligent in an investigation that led to a controversial 2004 execution.
The panel also said that investigators did not commit misconduct.
Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004, 13 years after a fire killed his three daughters. Prosecutors argued that Willingham deliberately set the 1991 blaze -- but three reviews of the evidence by outside experts have found the fire should not have been ruled arson.
The last of those reports was ordered by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which has been looking into Willingham's execution since 2008. A September 2009 shake-up by Texas Gov. Rick Perry kept that panel from reviewing the report.
But on Friday, the panel declared that investigators were using the science available to them at the time, even though it was flawed. The board said it would present its final report for a vote at a meeting in October.
The AP report by Juan Lozano is, "Texas panel finds flaws but no negligence in arson inquiry that led to execution," via the Dallas Morning News.
A commission reviewing a disputed arson finding that led to a Corsicana man's 2004 execution for the deaths of his three young children said in a preliminary report Friday that the fire investigators used flawed science but didn't commit negligence or misconduct.
Texas Forensic Science Commission members said they believed there was insufficient evidence to establish whether investigators botched their 1991 investigation of the fire that killed Cameron Todd Willingham's three daughters.
Investigators with the State Fire Marshal's Office had ruled that the blaze was an arson started by an accelerant. Willingham, 36, was later convicted of capital murder for setting the blaze.
Since Willingham's execution, persistent questions have been raised by arson experts and national media reports about the forensic evidence used in the prosecution.
In a report prepared last year for the commission, fire expert Craig Beyler said the original investigation was so seriously flawed that the finding of arson couldn't be supported. He said the investigation didn't adhere to fire investigation standards in place at the time or to current standards.
The controversy increased in September when Gov. Rick Perry replaced three members of the forensic commission, including its chairman, two days before it was to review Beyler's report.
And:
Patricia Cox, Willingham's cousin, told commission members that she appreciated the group's acknowledgment that the forensic evidence used to convict her loved one was flawed.
"Even though there may not have been any malice or intent by fire investigators about not being informed on current standards, that doesn't excuse the fact that, based on this misinformation, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed, and that can't be corrected," said a tearful Cox.
Willingham's stepmother, Eugenia Willingham, was too upset to speak during the meeting's public comment section. But during a break, she said she couldn't believe the panel's conclusion and vowed to continue fighting for her stepson's exoneration.
Both Cox and Eugenia Willingham came from their hometown of Ardmore, Okla., to attend the meeting. Two other women at the meeting held signs with photographs of Willingham that read: "No More Cover Up! Todd: Innocent and Executed!" and "Put Todd Willingham on the Agenda."
The Austin American-Statesman reports, "Commission: No negligence or misconduct by investigators in fatal fire," by Chuck Lindell.
A majority of the Texas Forensic Science Commission has tentatively concluded that there was no professional negligence or misconduct by arson investigators whose flawed work in a fatal Corsicana fire contributed to the conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.
It would be wrong to punish investigators for following commonly held beliefs about fire conditions that are known, in hindsight, to be invalid indicators of arson, said John Bradley, chairman of a four-member panel reviewing Willingham's case.
"We should hold people accountable based on standards that existed when they were working on these things," Bradley said during the commission's quarterly meeting Friday.
All four members of the investigative panel agreed with the preliminary finding, which was reached during two meetings that were closed to the public, said Dr. Sarah Kerrigan, a forensic toxicologist and director of the Sam Houston State University crime lab in Huntsville.
"The panel unanimously felt the science was flawed by today's standards, but the question for us was, was there professional negligence or misconduct?" Kerrigan said, adding that scientific arson standards — though adopted nationally in 1992, the year Willingham was convicted — had not filtered down to the front-line investigators in Texas.
The other three members of the commission had little to add to the discussion.
But with the commission appearing to head toward a vote directing the investigative panel to write a final report on its Willingham findings, lawyer Barry Scheck interrupted, starting the first of two shouting matches with Bradley.
"I must protest that," said Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project in New York, which filed the original commission complaint about the Willingham case.
"I am going to ask you to please sit down and be quiet or leave," Bradley said.
But Scheck pressed on, saying the commission's inquiry was heading down the wrong path.
Instead of focusing on the fire investigators, Scheck implored commissioners to analyze the state fire marshal's office , which he said adopted scientifically based standards for determining when a fire is arson yet failed to reinvestigate hundreds of arson convictions obtained from investigations now known to be flawed.
"Was it the fire marshal's office that engaged in professional neglect or misconduct?" Scheck asked. "Does the (agency) have a duty to correct any past representations that are wrong, that are scientifically invalid?"
In the end, commissioners voted to give Scheck and other interested parties three weeks to submit objections to the proposed finding.
In addition, the panel will ask fire experts to submit information on what Texas arson investigators knew — or should have known — when the Willingham fire was investigated in 1991 and when he was prosecuted in 1992.
The investigative panel will then spend about three weeks compiling the information and writing a final report about the Willingham fire, which will be presented to the full commission during an as-yet unscheduled special meeting, probably in September.
Allan Turner writes, "Panel cites 'flawed science' in arson case," for the Houston Chronicle.
Friday's action was the latest chapter in the contentious review of the arson investigators' work spurred by a complaint filed by the New York-based Innocence Project. The commission is not tasked with determining whether Texas might have executed an innocent man, but whether the arson investigators followed sound scientific principles.
At least three expert reviews, including a commission-financed study by Baltimore fire expert Craig Beyler, have been critical of the arson investigations. Burn patterns, multiple points of origin and other phenomenon investigators found at the scene wrongly were interpreted as signs the fire deliberately was set, the experts concluded.
Beyler, who wrote that investigators observed neither the standards of the National Fire Prevention Association, adopted shortly after the blaze, nor standards applicable at the time of the fire, was scheduled to appear before commissioners last September.
Days before the meeting, however, Gov. Rick Perry replaced the commission chairman with Bradley, district attorney in Williamson County. The session at which Beyler was scheduled to speak was canceled, and the fire expert never appeared before the body.
Morgan Smith updated her Texas Tribune post after the meeting.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis issued the following statement about today’s proceedings:
"I am happy to hear that the Forensic Science Commission is moving forward on the Todd Willingham investigation, but unfortunately the Commission is off track in terms of what it should be investigating. It was painfully apparent that many FSC members believe that flawed science was used in the Willingham conviction, but the FSC does not seem interested in looking at the bigger picture: When did the State Fire Marshal start using modern arson science and did the State Fire Marshal commit professional negligence or misconduct when it failed to inform the courts, prosecutors, the Board of Pardons and Parole, and the Governor that flawed arson science had been used to convict hundreds of defendants?
Earlier coverage begins with this post; all coverage is 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 September 2009 New Yorker article is noted here. 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."The Innocence Project, which webcast Friday's FSC meeting, has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.
Comments