The StandDown Texas Project

Texas Forensic Science Commission Begins New Screening

'Hair Analysis: The Root of the Evidence Problem," is by Jordan Smith at the Austin Chronicle.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission voted unanimously Friday morning to move forward with a first-in-the-nation review of state criminal convictions that included testimony on microscopic hair analysis – a field of forensics deemed unreliable in a sweeping 2009 report on the state of forensics by the National Academy of Sciences.

Texas' planned review piggybacks on a groundbreaking federal investigation announced in July 2013. That inquiry involves 2,000 criminal cases in which hair comparison analysis linking a defendant to crime scene evidence was provided by Federal Bureau of Investigation examiners. That review is being conducted via an agreement between the FBI and Department of Justice with the New York-based Innocence Project and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Many of the Texas' hair examiners were trained by the FBI, so the state review makes sense, according to the Innocence Project of Texas, which is among the stakeholders collaborating with the FSC on the review. Indeed, the FSC noted this in its most recent annual report. "The FBI has also indicated that it trained many microscopic hair analysts in state and local crime laboratories, including some laboratories in Texas," reads the report. "Of course, this does not necessarily mean that state and local analysts made similar [scientific] overstatements" as did the FBI analysts at issue in the federal review. Still, as it is with that review, Texas' inquiry will focus on older cases, because microscopic hair analysis was more common in the 1980s and 1990s, before the rise of DNA testing.

Indeed, faulty hair analysis has been implicated in the case of at least one executed Texas inmate, Claude Jones, who was sentenced to die for the 1989 shooting of a liquor store owner. Jones maintained his innocence to death, and it wasn't until some 10 years later that DNA testing sought by the IP and the Texas Observer proved that the hair that the state said linked Jones to the crime wasn't his at all.

Earlier coverage of the FSC and microscopic hair analysis begins at the link;  also available, links to other FSC work, and more on the case of Claude Jones. 

Related posts are in the forensics and Texas Forensic Science Commission category indexes.

Michael Morton & Barry Scheck on Need Clemency Reform

"Morton, Scheck: Changes are long overdue for Texas' clemency process," is the Houston Chronicle OpEd written by exoneree Michael Morton and Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project.

Few people can comprehend the pain felt by the family of Cameron Todd Willingham, whose survivors recently stood with us at the Capitol to ask the state to investigate his wrongful execution.

And:

The state of Texas has acted admirably in the creation of the Forensic Science Commission, which has critiqued the fire science in the case; and the State Fire Marshal's Office has, in conjunction with the Innocence Project of Texas, implemented a review of past arson cases where convictions may have been based on similarly unreliable evidence. Improvements also have been made in the judicial system with the passage of the Michael Morton Act, new requirements for DNA testing in death penalty prosecutions and the creation of a new procedure to consider scientific evidence that contradicts that which led to a conviction.

But the clemency process that failed to discover Willingham's innocence in 2004 remains essentially unchanged. A recent study by a committee of the American Bar Association found that the Board of Pardons and Paroles' consideration of capital cases is woefully inadequate - Texas does not meet any of the eleven minimum guidelines for an adequate process. This is a gaping hole in the safety net against wrongful execution.

Although reasonable people can debate the effectiveness of the death penalty or whether it is morally appropriate, no one can endorse a system that allows the execution of an innocent person. And we need to do everything in our power to make sure that the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the last stop in our criminal justice system, has the resources and the procedures necessary to do its job.

Earlier coverage of Todd Willingham's case begins at the link.

In 2005, Texas Appleseed and the Texas Innocence Network published, "The Role of Mercy: Safegaurding Texas Justice Through Clemency Reform," which examined best practices in executive clemency.  The Appendix contains comparative state information.  Though several Texas lawmakers have pushed for clemency reform, the process remains as it was in 2005, when the report was issued.

Related posts are in the clemency category index.

Additional coverage of Michael Morton's exoneration and pursuit of criminal justice reforms is also available.

San Antonio Express-News Columnist O. Ricardo Pimentel

San Antonio Express-News columnist O. Ricardo Pimentel writes, "The unfinished business: the death penalty."  Here's the beginning of this must-read:

The photo of Gov. Rick Perry signing legislation that diminishes the chances of wrongful convictions in Texas is rich in irony. More important, it projects an indelible sense of job undone.

The irony is embodied in the now-deceased person of Cameron Todd Willingham, who also points to the unfinished work. Those intimately familiar with Texas' criminal justice history can tell you that Willingham, even more than Michael Morton — whose case prompted this legislation — is the state's prime example of wrongful conviction.

Morton's story is incredibly tragic. He spent nearly 25 years in prison after being convicted in the beating death of his wife. The prosecution withheld evidence that would have cleared him. Thanks to the work of the New York-based Innocence Project, Morton was exonerated by DNA evidence that pointed to another man, who has since been convicted.

But Morton is alive. Texas executed Willingham in 2004, convicted on the strength of highly flawed arson evidence for the deaths of his three daughters in Corsicana. The evidence actually points to no arson.

The photo shows Perry signing the bill at his desk, flanked by Morton and legislators. The irony: a report discrediting the evidence used to convict Willingham came across that desk or one similar in plenty of time for Perry to have spared Willingham's life.

Earlier coverage of the new criminal discovery law - aka, the Michael Morton Act - begins at the link.  Related posts are in the Michael Morton and Todd Willingham category indexes.

Texas Arson Conviction Reviews

"Duty to correct bad arson cases," is the Dallas Morning News editorial.

Breakthroughs take time in criminal justice reform, and they get messy, but they are no less impressive when they happen.

Just this week in Houston, the state fire marshal’s office sat down with outside experts to pore over a short list of old arson cases suspected of using junk science to put someone behind bars. One of those suspect cases, from the Central Texas town of Hewitt, is on a separate review track in McLennan County. The district attorney there has cited “serious and complex issues” involving arson forensics in the murder conviction of Ed Graf, who will get a hearing Friday on a writ to reopen his 26-year-old case.

All this traces back to the noisy early days of the Texas Forensic Science Commission and its first case, the arson-murder conviction of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004. Critics were prone to calling reformers out of bounds, grandstanders who were out to undermine Texans’ support of the death penalty.

Those critics need to take a look today. The fight was a righteous one and has yielded a kind of systematic re-examination of the science in arson convictions that is unprecedented in the nation.

As a fledgling agency, the Forensic Science Commission took heat for stretching its authority in 2008 and accepting the Willingham case for review. This newspaper is glad it did, even though the law creating the commission didn’t expressly list arson as a forensic science under its purview.

Today's Los Angeles Times reports, "Texas judge to examine old arson case amid statewide review," by Molly Hennessy-Fiske.  Here's an extended excerpt:

A Texas judge is expected to consider Friday whether to grant a new trial for a man serving a life sentence for murdering his two stepsons by arson, or even to declare him innocent.

Ed Graf, 60, was convicted in 1988 of locking his 8- and 9-year-old stepsons in a backyard storage shed in Hewitt, Texas, just outside Waco, and setting the shed afire.

Graf’s is among a handful of arson cases under review by the Lubbock-based Innocence Project of Texas and an expert state fire panel, an unprecedented investigation of closed cases recommended by the state’s Forensic Science Commission. The expert panel includes the leader of the science commission.

Innocence Project officials hope the review will help overturn wrongful convictions that relied on so-called “junk science,” discredited approaches of determining whether fires were intentionally set.

Earlier this week, the officials brought their findings to the fire panel assembled by Texas Fire Marshal Chris Connealy in Houston.

The panel convened after a report last year by the Forensic Science Commission found that unreliable science helped lead to Cameron Todd Willingham's conviction for murder by arson in 1992. Willingham, 24, had been convicted in the deaths of his three children in a 1991 fire at their home in Corsicana, about 55 miles south of Dallas, and was executed in 2004.

Last year’s science commission report did not draw conclusions about Willingham's guilt, instead recommending the arson review currently underway.

Innocence Project staff found about 30 problematic arson cases they want to investigate, and brought them to the six-member state fire panel when it met for the first time Tuesday.

One case involved weak evidence about how a house fire started. Another concerned questionable arson evidence from a fire in the 1980s in Pasadena, about 15 miles east of Houston. The person convicted in the latter case is serving a 75-year sentence.

Connealy, a former fire chief working in the field since 1978, said the expert panel reviewed five questionable cases, including Graf’s. He declined to identify the other cases, since he said the panel had yet to notify the officials who originally handled them.

"Experts to testify in Ed Graf arson murder case from 1980s," is a December 2012 report from the Waco Tribune with background information on the Graf case.  It's written by Cindy V. Culp.

Two of the nation’s leading fire science experts are scheduled to come to Waco next month for a hearing that will help decide the fate of a Hewitt man who claims he was wrongfully convicted of arson murder.

But the hearing could have implications far beyond Ed Graf’s case, said Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas.He said the state’s criminal justice system is starting to come to terms with the idea that junk science contributed to a number of wrongful convictions in recent decades.

But the state’s highest criminal court has not yet developed a uniform and fair way of handling such injustice, he said.

The hearing in Graf’s case, scheduled for Jan. 11, will be the first post-conviction hearing in Texas where attorneys will present evidence to show faulty fire science was used to secure an arson conviction, Blackburn said.

If he and Waco attorney Walter M. Reaves Jr. are able to provide the level of proof they think they can, Graf’s case could well be the one that finally causes the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to set a precedent that offers appropriate relief to people ensnared by bad science, he said.

“The law in this area is complicated and generally terrible, but the facts of Ed Graf’s case are not,” Blackburn said. “It shows the stark possibilities of the way science can be misused and abused in a courtroom. The guy shouldn’t have been convicted and deserves a new trial.”

Earlier coverage of the systematic review of Texas arson cases begins at the link.  This is also a good opportunity to point readers to Dave Mann's enterprise reporting on questionable arson convictions in the Texas Observer, including his 2009 reporting on Ed Graf's case.

At the State Fire Marshall's Office

"State Fire Marshal Resigns as Arson Inquiry Begins," is the title of Brandi Grissom's post at the Texas Tribune.

The Texas state fire marshal who defended the agency’s work in the Cameron Todd Willingham arson investigation quietly and hurriedly resigned in December after seven years on the job.

Paul Maldonado’s one-sentence, hand-written letter of resignation, dated Dec. 12, comes just as the fire marshal’s office, in conjunction with the Innocence Project of Texas, embarks on an unprecedented review of arson cases in the wake of the Texas Forensic Science Commission’s protracted examination of the Willingham case.

Asked why Maldonado resigned, spokesman Jerry Hagins said the agency does not discuss personnel issues. “The personnel change won't affect the work of the State Fire Marshal's office,” Hagins wrote in an email. 

In October, after discussions with the Texas Forensic Science Commission and the Innocence Project, Maldonado had agreed to cooperate with a review of old arson cases to determine whether faulty science might have led to wrongful convictions. At the commission’s meeting on Friday, an update is expected on the progress of the review.

And:

Lynn Robitaille, general counsel at the commission, said Maldonado’s departure would not affect the arson case review, which is already under way.

“I think it's all systems go,” said Jeff Blackburn, general counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas, which is spearheading the review.

He said his group has already sent questionnaires to more than 1,000 inmates in Texas prisons on arson-related charges. Once those are returned, he said, Innocence Project staff will begin sifting through the cases to determine which ones warrant a deeper vetting.

“We’re way past the talking stage, and we’re in the doing stage,” Blackburn said.

Earlier coverage of the agreement to review arson cases for outdated science begins at the link.

Earlier coverage of the Todd Willingham case begins at the link. All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

This is also a perfect time to point readers back to Dave Mann's enterprise reporting on questionable arson convictions in the Texas Observer.

Gov. Perry Makes New Appointments to FSC

"Forensic board loses one Tarrant member, gains another," is the title of Yamil Berard's report in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Tarrant County is losing a defense attorney but gaining a prosecutor on the high-profile state board responsible for righting the wrongs of Texas forensic science.

In a move that drew little fanfare -- virtually an oxymoron for anything involving the Texas Forensic Science Commission -- Gov. Rick Perry announced Monday that he was replacing three members.

Assistant District Attorney Richard Alpert of North Richland Hills will replace former board Chairman John Bradley, district attorney of Williamson County. Bradley's controversial appointment two years ago gave rise to criticism that the governor had hand-picked the prosecutor to block findings that Texas had executed an innocent man.

While Bradley was a lightning rod on the commission, Alpert said he is "hoping to be more weather-resistant."

Also stepping down from the panel is Lance Evans, a Tarrant County defense attorney appointed in 2009.

He said this change will likely not make waves.

"It's not going to have near the turmoil this time as it did last time," Evans said.

Evans is being replaced by Robert Lerma, a Brownsville attorney in private practice and former president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

The Tarrant County medical examiner, Dr. Nizam Peerwani, appointed to the commission in December 2009, was reappointed and will continue to serve as chairman for "a term to expire at the pleasure of the governor," according to Monday's announcement.

The other new member is Dr. Vincent Di Maio of San Antonio, a former chief medical examiner for Bexar County. Di Maio replaces Dr. Norma Farley, chief forensic pathologist in Hidalgo and Cameron counties.

Perry's spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said commissioners were replaced because their terms had expired.

The governor's office issued the news release, "Gov. Perry Appoints Four to Texas Forensic Science Commission."  It contains brief biographies of the four appointees.

Related posts are in the Texas Forensic Science Commission index.

FSC Investigation on Willingham Ends; 700+ Arson Cases to Get Review

The Texas Forensic Science Commission's Addendum to the Willingham/Willis Investigation Report, what appears to be the Commission's final word, is available in Adobe .pdf format.

"Willingham inquiry ends, but effects linger," is the title of Chuck Lindell's report for the Austin American-Statesman.  It appeared in the Saturday edition.

A state investigation into the science used to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham came to a quiet close Friday, but its results might echo across the justice system and the nation's death penalty debate for years to come.

Making final changes to its report on the Willingham case, the Texas Forensic Science Commission signed off on a document acknowledging that unreliable fire science played a role in the Corsicana man's conviction for the murder-by-arson deaths of his three young daughters in 1991. He was executed in 2004.

Following commonly held beliefs now known to be wrong, arson investigators testified that the Willingham house fire was intentionally set using a liquid accelerant, the commission concluded.

Modern fire experts working for the commission and for the New York-based Innocence Project, which is representing Willingham posthumously, have determined that none of the more than 20 "arson indicators" identified by fire investigators in 1991 are reliable evidence of accelerant use. The cause of the fire should have been "undetermined," the experts said.

Though the commission's inquiry was never intended to weigh Willingham's guilt or innocence, the findings have added fuel to the debate over capital punishment.

"The world should now know that the evidence relied upon to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham for the fire that killed his daughters was based on scientifically invalid and unreliable evidence," said Stephen Saloom , policy director for the Innocence Project. "By any fair estimate, that indicates he was innocent, that he did not set that fire."

And:

The agency's final report includes a commitment from the state fire marshal's office — whose investigator was the chief prosecution witness at Willingham's trial — to review old arson rulings to determine whether convictions were based on now-debunked assumptions.

The Innocence Project of Texas will provide most of the heavy lifting — about 40 forensic science and law students — to help the fire marshal identify and review old arson cases, said Jeff Blackburn, chief lawyer for the Texas nonprofit legal organization.

"I think this is a great opportunity," Blackburn said during Friday's commission meeting in Austin. "As far as I know, this is the only example of this kind of cooperation going on anywhere in the country."

The Texas Tribune post is, "Forensic Science Panel Recommends Arson Probe," by Claire Cardona.

Now, a new stage of work begins that will require time and cooperation to conduct an exhaustive review of previous arson cases. But Blackburn said with the Fire Marshal's involvement, all the pieces are falling into place. 

The commission's recommendations include the creation of a questionnaire for inmates convicted of arson to see if their cases are worth reviewing. The panel also recommended a review of death certificates in cases where the murder charge is listed as arson.

The recommendations also include new certification criteria for expert witnesses, and additional rules and regulations aimed at preventing the use of outdated science and improving the quality of testimony and analysis.

Since his 2004 execution, Willingham's family has continued a fight to prove his innocence. Willingham's cousin, Patricia Ann Willingham-Cox, thanked the commission for its work. 

"Have we gotten justice for Todd in the state of Texas? No, not yet, but we will," Cox said. "Has Todd's death effected needed change? Yes."

"Texas forensic board recommends review of arson convictions," is the title of Will Weissert's AP report.  It's also available via the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

A Texas commission no longer allowed to investigate a case where death penalty opponents say a man may have been executed based on a faulty arson investigation recommended Friday that all cases involving people locked up on arson convictions be reviewed.

The reviews were among 17 recommendations for improving arson inquiries approved by the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The State Fire Marshall's Office has agreed to scrutinize forensics in cases where determinations that fires were deliberately set led to an arson conviction or a murder by arson conviction.

The Innocence Project of Texas, the state arm of a national non-profit that specializes in using DNA evidence to overturn wrongful convictions, will help identify cases for review by providing written surveys to prisoners. State officials also will examine death certificates to ensure qualifying murder cases are identified — since some that involve fires don't list arson as the official cause of death.

Jeff Blackburn, the Innocence Project of Texas' chief attorney, said priority will be given to Texas death row inmates. How many prisoners could have their cases reviewed is unclear, but just looking at arson convictions could involve 750 to 900 cases.

The eight-member panel made its recommendations after the state attorney general limited the scope of its investigation in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was put to death in 2004 for setting a 1991 fire that killed his three children. Arson experts hired by the forensic commission determined the evidence used to convict Willingham didn't meet modern scientific standards and the fire was most likely accidental.

The commission took up Willingham's case after the New York-based Innocence Project filed a complaint in 2007. It couldn't have overturned his conviction but might have determined whether evidence was collected and analyzed properly, supplying grounds for an appeal if it wasn't.

Earlier coverage of the Todd Willingham case begins at the link. All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

This is also a perfect time to point readers back to Dave Mann's enterprise reporting on questionable arson convictions in the Texas Observer.

More Commentary on the Michael Morton Case

"This should be a bigger deal in Perry's campaign," is the title of O. Ricardo Pimentel's column in today's San Antonio Express-News.

The average stay on Texas' death row is about 10 years.

Michael Morton spent 25 years in prison on a life sentence for a murder he didn't commit — another release due to DNA evidence.

Ten years. Twenty-five years. The difference tells us that, had Morton been tried on capital murder charges, he'd be dead. Like Cameron Todd Willingham.

Willingham spent about 12 years on death row. He was executed in 2004 in the arson deaths of his three daughters though the forensic evidence was shown, even before his execution, to be highly flawed.

What-might-have-tragically-been is not lost on Morton. “I thank God this wasn't a capital case,” he said after his release last week.

And:

Any accountability coming for the DA's office? I doubt it. But the case does demonstrate why the state and its governor should be held accountable for the death penalty, from which there is no recovery if wrongful conviction occurs, as in the Willingham case.

It's instructive that Texas' nation-leading error rate fails to sway no-sleepless-nights Perry in his role as the guy with the power to spare lives, as he had the opportunity to do with Willingham.

It's interesting also that the law-and-order guy Perry appointed to the forensic commission is a guy who apparently cared so little for truth that he obstinately stood in the way of testing evidence that released an innocent man. Interesting, but not surprising.

Earlier coverage of the Michael Morton case, the Todd Willingham case, and the Texas Forensic Science Commission begins at the link.

FSC to Close Willingham Investigation; Fire Marshall to Examine Other Cases

"Thanks to Willingham inquiry, old arson cases getting a new look," is Chuck Lindell's report from the Saturday edition of the Austin American-Statesman.

The state fire marshal's office has agreed to review prior arson investigations to determine if criminal convictions were obtained using bad science or now-debunked assumptions, it was announced Friday.

The review was a key concession sought by the Texas Forensic Science Commission as part of its investigation into the science used to convict, and ultimately execute, Cameron Todd Willingham for the 1991 fire that killed his three young daughters.

Last April, the science commission determined that fire investigators, including a deputy fire marshal, relied on scientifically invalid techniques to rule that Willingham intentionally set fire to his Corsicana home.

Uncomfortable that a poor understanding of fire science could have influenced other investigations, the commission's Willingham report also urged Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado to review his agency's files.

Maldonado agreed to the review earlier this week, Forensic Science Commission Chairman Nizam Peerwani announced Friday.

"I thought that was a wonderful thing," Peerwani said. "There is no legal requirement for retroactive review, no mandate under the law, but there is some ethical and moral duty to do that."

The Dallas Morning News carried, "Texas forensic commission hesitant on Willingham case after attorney general's opinion," by Sommer Ingram.

The state’s forensic science commission, restricted by an opinion from the attorney general, is postponing a final vote on a high-profile arson case that death penalty opponents say may have led an innocent man to his death.

A draft report says the commission will decline to find negligence in the case involving Cameron Todd Willingham.

The state fire marshal’s office agreed this week to many of the Texas Forensic Science Commission’s 17 recommendations for improving arson science and investigation, commission chairman Nizam Peerwani said Friday. Included in these recommendations is a retroactive review of cases in which new scientific knowledge could have an impact.

Commissioners decided Friday to delay a formal vote until October so updated information about the fire marshal could be added.

Willingham was executed in 2004 for what investigators at the time said was an intentional fire set to his Corsicana home to kill his three daughters in 1991. Fire experts have since told the commission that Willingham’s conviction was based on bad science, and the New-York based Innocence Project filed a complaint asking the panel to find professional negligence by the fire investigators.

The case has been a source of criticism of Gov. Rick Perry, including in his campaign for president, because activists say he ignored key evidence suggesting Willingham’s conviction was faulty and failed to stop his execution. Perry has said he’s sure of Willingham’s guilt.

The commission determined previously that the evidence used to convict Willingham of arson-murder was unreliable.

But Attorney General Greg Abbott’s recent opinion prohibits consideration of evidence gathered or tested before the panel’s creation in September 2005, which has left commissioners treading lightly regarding their jurisdiction.

"Panel delays Willingham decision after AG ruling," by Allan Turner in the Houston Chronicle.

The report reiterated 17 recommendations for state and local arson investigators to improve their science, then sidestepped the controversial question of whether arson cops had been negligent or guilty of professional misconduct in the case.

On Friday, commission Chairman Nazim Peerwani told colleagues the fire marshal's office is moving toward meeting those suggestions.

Peerwani and Texas Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado conferred on the recommendations this week, with the fire executive pledging to share any "process improvements" with fire departments throughout the state.

Citing a recent Texas attorney general's opinion indicating the Willingham case was outside the commission's jurisdiction, the draft said no determination of negligence would be made.

Three reviews of the arson investigation, including one commissioned by the panel, found the arson investigation lacking.

"Forensic Panel Calls for Review of Past Arson Cases," by Brandi Grissom for the Texas Tribune,

A review of arson cases to determine whether faulty evidence has led to wrongful convictions has been a main aim of the New York-based Innocence Project, which filed the original complaint launching the commission’s work in the Willingham case. Stephen Saloom, policy director for the national organization, said he was pleased that the review would take place but was disappointed the commission did not take stronger action against the fire marshal’s office. The review of arson cases, he said, should not be left to the discretion of Maldonado, who has said that he stands by the evidence used to convict Willingham.

“It’s hard to understand how the public can have confidence that their recommendations will provide justice,” he said. “The commission is on the right track, but this job is not done.”

Maldonado declined to comment for this story.

Commissioners said they would finalize the Willingham report after their October meeting, and incorporate the fire marshal’s agreements to implement their recommendations.

Saloom said he hoped to convince the commission to take more of a leadership role in ensuring that all previous arson cases are investigated. He said the attorney general’s ruling had made the commission “gun shy.”

“It may have largely neutered this commission’s potential effectiveness and undermined legislators’ clear intent in creating this commission,” Saloom said.

Former commission chairman Sam Bassett, who publicly criticized Perry this week for attempting to squash the Willingham investigation, said Friday that the commission’s decision was a sad one. Bassett was chairman from 2007 until 2009, and the Willingham work began during his tenure. He said he now believes that he was given the boot to provide Perry with political cover.

Earlier coverage of the Forensic Science Commission investigation of the Willingham case begins at the link. The AG Opinon GA 866 is available in Adobe .pdf format.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

I also want to point readers back to Dave Mann's enterprise reporting on questionable arson convictions in the Texas Observer.

Sam Bassett

Brandi Grissom conducts the Texas Tribune interview with Sam Bassett, former Chair of the Forensic Science Commission. It's a must-read.  There is video at the link.

The Tribune sat down with Bassett on Thursday to discuss his views on why the governor replaced him, his suspicions that political motivations were behind it, why he believes the commission had the authority to conduct its investigation, and why he argues it is critical for the Texas justice system that the commission finish what it started under his leadership.

And:

TT: When did you first hear from the governor's office about the Willingham investigation?

SB: The first contact I had with the governor’s office was in February of 2009. I was called by an appointment secretary of sorts and asked to come over and meet with the general counsel, and [I was told] that it was important and urgent. I couldn’t meet that day, but I arranged to meet the following day during the noon hour I think, and I went over and met with David Cabrales who was then his general counsel and Mary Anne Wiley who was an assistant general counsel in charge of criminal justice issues. And I had a meeting in their office in February. That was the first meeting I had with the staff.

TT: What did they want to talk about?

SB: I wasn’t told why they wanted me to come over. I wasn’t given any sort of agenda or anything that they wanted to discuss ahead of time. I just went; I didn’t know what they were going to talk about. We began the meeting by discussing the commission in general, and then we started talking specifically about the investigations we were doing. We seemed to get stuck on the Willingham investigation. As soon as I brought it up the tone of the meeting turned more hostile and Mr. Cabrales in particular was very adamant that that’s not the kind of investigation the commission was intended for, and I think Ms. Wiley at one point characterized our investigation as a waste of state money, and I was criticized for bringing in an expert from outside of Texas. I just tried to respond by saying I thought we had jurisdiction over the issue, but that I would go do some checking to make sure I wasn’t off. And I also told them briefly that I thought the commission wanted to go forward with the investigation since it was a unanimous vote to proceed with the investigation.

Earlier coverage of the FSC and the Willingham investigation begins with the preceding post.

The AG Opinon GA 866 is available in Adobe .pdf format.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

FSC to Decide Today on Future of Willingham - Arson Investigation

"Despite Concerns, Science Panel Will Restrict Inquests," is the title of Brandi Grissom's Texas Tribune report.

Whether they like it or not, members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission today agreed that they will use an attorney general’s opinion that severely limits the panel’s jurisdiction as a guideline for future investigations. What that means for the Cameron Todd Willingham investigation — the commission’s most important and controversial case — will be up for discussion Friday.

“While it is not binding on us, [the opinion] does carry some weight,” said commissioner Lance Evans, a criminal defense lawyer from Fort Worth.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote in July that the commission could not investigate evidence gathered or tested before it was established Sept. 1, 2005. He also concluded that the commission’s authority is limited to labs accredited by the Department of Public Safety. The commission met Thursday for the first time since that ruling and since the appointment of Dr. Nizam Peerwani, the Tarrant County medical examiner, as its chairman.

During the first day of a two-day meeting, the commissioners outlined how they would use the attorney general’s ruling to make decisions about which new cases they would investigate.

The commissioners expressed frustration over the contradiction between Abbott’s interpretation of the statute and communications they had with legislators. State Sens. Rodney Ellis and Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, who worked on the 2005 law, had made clear their intent was to allow investigations of older cases.

Chuck Lindell writes, "Forensic science panel struggles under restrictions in Willingham case," for today's Austin American-Statesman.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission, which has already determined that unreliable science played a role in the conviction and execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, will decide today whether to take additional action on the arson-murder case.

The commission is struggling to identify options after the attorney general's office recently determined that legislators, despite intending to give the agency broad investigative powers, instead wrote a law that provided an extremely narrow scope of authority.

Those limits became apparent Thursday when the panel, kicking off two days of meetings in Austin, dismissed four complaints for lack of jurisdiction — including two that commissioners believed deserved additional investigation.

Commissioners chafed at the restrictions.

"I respect the legal opinion, and I intend to abide by it, but I'd hate that by doing nothing (on these cases), the credibility of the commission is at stake," said Commissioner Sarah Kerrigan, a forensic toxicologist.

"It's an opinion, right?" asked Chairman Nizam Peerwani, the Tarrant County chief medical examiner. "What if we as a commission choose not to follow it? What are the consequences?"

The answer — that commissioners could be sued individually if they exceed their authority — quieted that line of discussion.

One complaint the panel reluctantly rejected involved Sonia Cacy, sentenced to 99 years for killing her Fort Stockton uncle by setting fire to his bed in 1991. Forensic tests found gasoline on his clothes, but Cacy was released six years later when new tests determined that gas had never been present.

"Executed man's relatives urge Texas panel to continue probe," by Matt Smith is at CNN.

Relatives of a man executed in 2004 urged a Texas state commission Thursday to continue probing claims that outdated scientific testimony put him on death row as members weighed a legal opinion restricting their authority.

"You can't uninvestigate a case you've already investigated," Patricia Cox, the cousin of executed convict Cameron Todd Willingham, told the Texas Forensic Science Commission. "You can't unacknowledge what you've already acknowledged."

Willingham was put to death for setting a fire that killed his three daughters in 1991, but several experts who have reviewed the testimony in his trial say the fire was likely not arson. A series of studies in the 1990s rendered obsolete most of the things investigators pointed to as proof the fire was deliberately set, they say.

The commission's investigation was delayed after Gov. Rick Perry, now a Republican presidential candidate, replaced its chairman and three other members in 2009. The former chairman, Sam Bassett, now accuses Perry of trying to derail an investigation into Willingham's execution, which the governor allowed to go forward.

Earlier coverage of the Forensic Science Commission meeting begins at the link.

How Will FSC Move Forward in Arson Cases

Yamil Berard writes, "Texas forensics panel may close book on arson case," for today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  Here's an extended excerpt:

The state's top forensics panel may be getting ready to pull the trigger on the most publicized death penalty examination in its six-year history: the case of Cameron Todd Willingham.

Members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission meet today for the first time since being told that they do not have the authority to scrutinize the state fire marshal's office arson investigation that led to Willingham's 2004 execution.

In a July 29 opinion, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the panel cannot examine forensic testing that predates its September 2005 inception.

Since then, commission members have remained mostly tight-lipped about the future of the Willingham case but haven't called it off. The commission is scheduled to meet beginning at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the effects of Abbott's opinion on the Willingham case and others, its agenda shows.

Fire marshal's officials and others who lauded Abbott's opinion argue that it closes the book on the Willingham case. Fire marshal's investigators had determined years ago that arson caused the 1991 house fire that killed the unemployed Corsicana mechanic's three young daughters. Ed Salazar, general counsel for the state fire marshal, said he told the commission long ago that it lacked the authority to look into the case.

"That was our position from the very beginning, but they just blew us off," he said.

But death penalty opponents and groups working to identify wrongful convictions say errors by the fire marshal's office in determining the cause of the fire must be addressed. They point to testimony by fire experts who told commission members in the past that the cause of the fire should have been ruled "undetermined." They also said the fire marshal's office used outdated methods and erred when determining its cause.

Abbott's opinion left an opening for action: While it prohibits the commission from making determinations on forensic evidence tested or offered in court before the panel's inception, it also states that there is no limitation on the commission's power to investigate any allegation of professional negligence or misconduct.

"We're confident that the commission is still going to look into it," said Stephen Saloom, policy director of the Innocence Project, which filed the Willingham complaint with the commission in 2006.

Texas Tribune coverage of the meeting is,"Advocates Urge Science Panel to Continue Arson Probe," by Brandi Grissom.

The Innocence Project is urging the Texas Forensic Science Commission to forge ahead with its investigation of the Cameron Todd Willingham and Ernest Ray Willis arson cases despite a recent ruling from the state’s top lawyer that seemed to limit the panel’s authority.

“As these cases so vividly demonstrate, your investigation is a matter of justice or wrongful convictions; indeed, it is a matter of life or death,” Steven Saloom, policy director at the New-York based organization, wrote in a letter Tuesday to the commission.

The commission is meeting today and Friday for the first time since Gov. Rick Perry appointed Dr. Nizam Peerwani chairman, replacing firebrand prosecutor and Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley. It’s also the first meeting since Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a ruling in July concluding that the panel cannot consider evidence in cases older than 2005. Willingham was convicted of igniting the 1991 blaze that killed his three young daughters. He was executed for the crime in 2004. Willis was convicted based on similar arson investigation techniques and was exonerated in 2004.

The Innocence Project in 2006 asked the Forensic Science Commission to investigate the science used to convict the two men.

And:

It’s unclear what action the commission will take at its meeting, and Peerwani did not respond to a request for comment for this story. But Sam Bassett, an Austin lawyer and past chairman of the commission, said he agreed the commission should complete the investigation. “The commission should take ‘corrective action’ to ensure that those with current or old cases involving arson are not wrongfully imprisoned,” Bassett said in an email. “The science being used in courtrooms throughout the 90’s in Texas has clearly been shown to be invalid in many instances.”

Earlier coverage of the Forensic Science Commission begins at the link.  The AG Opinon GA 866 is available in Adobe .pdf format.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Bad Blood at the Dallas County Crime Lab

That's the title of Amanda Grimes report in the September issue of D Magazine.  It's subtitled, "Attention, all convicted rapists and murderers. Start filing your appeals now.."  Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

No matter how easy it looks on prime-time television, putting bad guys in jail isn’t as simple as slipping on a dark pair of sunglasses, coming up with a scathing quip, and having an invariably sexy forensic biologist deliver irrefutable evidence that eliminates all reasonable doubt. Forensic science is a lot messier than that.

It’s so messy that, six years ago, Texas legislators created the Texas Forensic Science Commission. It was tasked with hearing complaints about faulty science, bad policy, and mismanagement in Texas crime labs, with an eye toward improving conviction integrity and ensuring the best possible practices in crime labs across the state.

The Dallas County Crime Lab—more formally called the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, or SWIFS—has yet to come under the commission’s microscope. But Dr. Chris Nulf says a thorough review is long overdue. He worked at the lab as a forensic analyst in 2008 and 2009 and has been trying to get the commission to investigate Dallas’ crime lab ever since. He is speaking openly for the first time about the problems he saw there during his tenure. Nulf says the lab practices poor quality control, training is sloppy, and management retaliates against employees who raise concerns. If Nulf is right and there are serious problems with the crime lab, every case that relies on physical evidence could be called into question. Imagine if every convicted rapist going back five years suddenly had a good reason to appeal his case. Similarly, sloppy lab work could send innocent people to jail.

“People’s liberties are at stake here,” Nulf says.

The Dallas County Crime Lab is currently accredited by the Texas Department of Public Safety and, as of 2003, by ASCLD/LAB, the multinational accreditation agency that crime labs pay to join. But Nulf says accreditation is only one part of the puzzle and that ASCLD/LAB has taken the lab at its word that its policies are sound. Essentially, the crime lab is doing fine because it says it is.

Related posts are in the crime lab and forensics indexes.

Commentary on AG's FSC Opinion Continues

Today's San Antonio Express-News carries the editorial, "AG ruling shouldn’t end Willingham case."

Gov. Rick Perry and his surrogates on the Texas Forensic Science Commission have done their best to stymie an investigation of the evidence that sent Cameron Todd Willingham to death row in 1992. The state of Texas executed Willingham in 2004 for the murder by arson of his three children.

Unfortunately, the Willingham case has became wrapped up in a larger debate about the death penalty, which in turn has implications for Perry’s political ambitions. Political considerations, however, should have no bearing on the outcome of this case.

And:

The Willingham case is not the only one in which the State Fire Marshal’s Office used flawed evidence to back up prosecutors. Yet even though the office has abandoned many of the procedures that produced that evidence, it has never acknowledged any error. It should.

Texans deserve to know whether bad evidence and the negligence or misconduct of arson investigators led to the flawed convictions of Willingham and others.

If the Texas Forensic Science Commission is unable to make a determination on this point, then a court of law or the Texas Legislature should.

Rick Casey's latest Houston Chronicle column is titled, "Law gets in way of science, again."  Here's an extended excerpt from the beginning of the column.

Attorney General Greg Abbott's recent official opinion on the law governing the Texas Forensic Science Commission has been widely described as "confusing."

It says, for example, that the commission can investigate the controversial arson findings in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, the Corsicana man who was executed in 2004 for killing his three children by arson in 1991.

But there is one caveat, the attorney general says. The commission can't look at the evidence presented to the jury, since only evidence presented after the law's passage in 2005 is to be examined.

But if the attorney general's opinion is confusing, it's partly because the law as written is confusing.

In my (unofficial) opinion, the attorney general gave a reasonable interpretation. But so did Barbara Dean, the highly respected veteran attorney in his own office assigned to act as counsel for the commission. Until this year when the commission hired a staff counsel, she attended every meeting and advised members on their powers. She never raised an objection during their years-long Willingham investigation.

Then there was the reasonable opinion of Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, who has some standing as a lawyer and the co-author of the bill establishing the commission.

He told the Corsicana Sun in 2009: "There is no statute of limitations on anything the Forensic Science Commission does."

Hinojosa was aware that the law needed refining, as new laws often do. That's why this spring he pushed revisions that would have gone a long way toward cleaning up the law.

One of the main points of tension was whether the law's sole job was to make findings as to whether staffers of certified forensic labs were negligent in handling individual cases, or whether it was to critique any illegitimate use of forensic science in Texas criminal justice cases and work to improve the practice in the state.

The AG Opinon GA 866 is available in Adobe .pdf format.   Earlier coverage of the Attorney General's Opinion on the Forensic Science Commission's authority begins at the link.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Jordan Smith on the AG Ruling

This week's Austin Chronicle, out today, carries, "A.G. Ruling on Arson Probe Is 'Just Weird'.  Decision hog-ties commission's role in Willingham case."  It's by Jordan Smith.  In this excerpt, she quotes Sam Bassett, who served as the first Chairman of the FSC:

Bassett, the well-respected Austin defense attorney whom Perry appointed and then pulled from the panel in 2009, says he finds the timing of the opinion questionable. Moreover, he noted in an email that a representative from the A.G.'s Office attended all of the meetings over which he presided, and the issue of jurisdiction was never raised. "It is frustrating for me to now see them interjecting themselves into this debate years after the ... investigation has progressed and is about to reach a conclusion.

"The current position of the [fire marshal] that the investigators' original findings of arson are supported by fire science is absolutely untenable," he concluded. "I speculate that this has made a lot of politicians uncomfortable and this has something to do with the timing of the Attorney General's findings."

Indeed, the case could be kept alive and the commission could finish its investigation because the State Fire Mar­shal's Office last year wrote to the commission defending the science used to convict Willingham and Willis – despite the scientific consensus to the contrary. By standing by the old science, the state fire marshal has seemingly made the "evidence" of its practices contemporary – that is, post-Sept. 1, 2005 – which would still, even under the most conservative reading of the A.G.'s ruling, allow the commission to consider it during its inquiry.

Although the A.G.'s ruling is "frankly ... just weird," says Stephen Saloom, policy director for the Innocence Project, there is nothing in it that would prevent the commission from considering whether the fire marshal is negligent by relying on outdated science. "The central element [to our complaint] is that the fire marshal has been negligent and remains negligent to this day for not informing the criminal justice system [that] the old arson science is invalid," he said. Indeed, that is the view apparently shared by state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who also serves as the Innocent Project's board chair. "Nothing in this [A.G.] opinion prevents the [commission] from completing its report and ruling that the [State Fire Marshal's Office] was negligent when it failed in its 'duty to correct' the flawed arson science that was used in numerous arson cases," Ellis said in a statement. "They had a 'duty to correct' prior to 2005, when the [FSC] legislation took effect, and after 2005, and they have never done so."

Earlier coverage of the Attorney General's Opinon begins with the preceding post.

Editorials Criticize AG's FSC Opinion

Today's Corpus Christi Caller-Times carries the editorial, "New limit on state forensics panel is a justice setback."

Even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty want to be sure that the condemned deserve their sentence. If a conviction can be proved wrongful, it should be — not just to prevent a pending execution, but to clear the names of the mistakenly executed and to learn how not to repeat such grievous errors.

How far such efforts should go is a matter of continuing debate. But they should go farther than the limit placed on them Friday by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. The attorney general decided that the Texas Forensic Science Commission can't examine forensic testing that predates the commission's 2005 inception.

And:

Abbott's opinion doesn't prevent the commission from looking into professional negligence or misconduct that occurred before the commission's inception. It just can't review evidence that was tested or introduced into evidence before then. So, assuming — as we do — that forensic science has progressed, Abbott's decision prevents the application of today's knowledge to correct mistakes by investigators who acted competently and in good faith but were limited by the technology of the day.

We'll go out on a limb and suspect that Texas imprisoned people wrongly convicted before 2005, including some on Death Row. Forgoing the potential to correct those mistakes because the commission didn't exist yet isn't justice.

The jury is out on whether it's politics, but there's a whiff of that in the Willingham case.

"Forensic panel should be aggressive, despite AG opinion," is today's Dallas Morning News editorial.

A new and confusing attorney general’s opinion might appear to hem in the authority of the Texas Forensic Science Commission over cases dating back several years, no matter how rotten they smell.

But it doesn’t have to turn out that way — not if the commission charts an aggressive tack when it sees that justice has been ill-served. And it should be clear that the commission smells an odor in the Cameron Todd Willingham arson-murder investigation, which ended in Willingham’s execution.

Bewildering guidelines in Attorney General Greg Abbott’s opinion leave the door ajar if the commission wants to take the final steps and decide whether arson investigators were negligent in the Willingham probe. We urge members to settle that question, despite the numerous efforts of Gov. Rick Perry and others to head off a closer examination of this troubling case.

And:

Should Willingham’s arson investigators have said something about the evolution of standards? Absolutely. Did they have a duty to correct the record?

On that, the Forensic Science Commission has been clear. Its Willingham report from April said that forensic investigators must speak up and correct the record when re-examination is warranted.

That didn’t happen prior to Willingham’s execution, and it should have. Silence was tantamount to negligence. There are potentially hundreds of inmates in Texas prisons whose convictions are based on outmoded science, and the state fire marshal’s office can and should be called out on it.

"Texas AG's forensic ruling further clouds Todd Willingham case," is the title of a Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial.

The point of asking the Texas attorney general for an interpretation of law is to find clarity and guidance.

But an AG's ruling on the authority of the Texas Forensic Science Commission seems to have added another convolution to those already encircling the case of Cameron Todd Willingham.

Attorney General Greg Abbott said the commission can continue looking into whether professional misconduct occurred in the arson investigation that led to Willingham's capital conviction -- but the panel can't evaluate specific evidence used to prosecute him.

That's more than a little confusing. And it adds more question marks to the commission's next steps in its Willingham inquiry.

And:

In July, Perry named Tarrant County Medical Examiner Nizam Peerwani chairman of the commission. Its next meeting is Sept. 9 in Austin, and a Saturday Star-Telegram news story quoted Peerwani as saying Abbott's ruling would be discussed.

It would be unfortunate if, after all the time and effort the commission put into examining the Willingham case, a final conclusion is precluded. But the work done so far has produced valuable recommendations for essential improvements in arson standards and training. Making those changes will strengthen the accuracy and fairness of criminal prosecutions -- and add certainty to the punishments the state administers.

AG Opinon GA 866 is available in Adobe .pdf format.  Earlier coverage of the Attorney General's Opinion regarding the FSC begins at the link.

Earlier coverage of the Todd Willingham case begins at the link. All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

The Haunting of Rick Perry

That's the title of Ta-Nehisi Coates' OpEd column in today's New York Times.

Should Gov. Rick Perry of Texas enter the 2012 presidential race, he would enjoy a strange and remarkable escort — the irrepressible ghost of Cameron Todd Willingham.

Charged with the horrific crime of intentionally torching his home and leaving his three daughters to the blaze, Willingham’s 1991 conviction and 2004 execution were secured by two great bugbears of America’s criminal justice system: pseudoscientific forensics and the compromised testimony of a jailhouse snitch.

The fire investigators who fingered Willingham relied on the kind of sorcery that fire scientists have tried for the past 20 years to chase from the field. The informant, for his part, claimed that Willingham had inexplicably blurted out a confession, then recanted his tale. Then, in the words of New Yorker reporter David Grann, he “recanted his recantation.” When Grann tracked him down in 2009, he told him that “it’s very possible I misunderstood” what Willingham said, pausing to add “the statute of limitations has run out on perjury, hasn’t it?”

Perry was unswayed by pleas from Willingham’s lawyers and rejected their request for a 30-day reprieve. This registers as a rather mild atrocity in Texas, a state that does not so much tinker with the machinery of death as it gleefully fumbles at the controls.

In 2000, an investigation by The Chicago Tribune found that almost one-third of court-appointed defense lawyers in capital cases in Texas had, at some point, been publicly sanctioned by the state’s trial board. The Tribune uncovered cases of lawyers falling asleep at trials, engaging in extortion and assaulting teenage girls. Prosecutors and police were found concealing evidence or worse. In 1980, Cesar Fierro received the death penalty on the strength of a confession secured after an El Paso sheriff colluded with police across the border in Juárez, Mexico, who arrested Fierro’s parents and threatened to attach an electric generator to his stepfather’s genitals. Fierro is still on death row.

Texas regularly executes more criminals than any other state, and does so in such haphazard fashion that it could be comic. Except people are dying.

Coats, a senior editor at the Atlantic, posts, "The Ghost Of Cameron Todd Willingham."

There really is no polite way to say this: The particular manner in which Texas employs the death penalty is a disgrace to the country. And there's no real end in sight. I am opposed to the death penalty, largely because I think a situation like this, somewhere, is unavoidable. 

On Willingham, I highly recommend everyone in the DC area check out Incendiary, which looks at the case. The explanation of fire science, and the phrenology employed by arson investigators in the case, is gripping. See it. 

And if you haven't read David Grann's piece on the case, please make time. The two compliment each other well.

More commentary on Rick Perry and Todd Willingham begins earlier coverage. 

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Texas Senate OK's Changes to FSC

"Texas Senate approves bill that would change Forensic Science Commission," by Yamil Berard for the Saturday Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

A state panel tasked with weeding out junk science in the criminal justice system would get broader powers under a bill approved by the Texas Senate on Friday.

Senate Bill 1658 would let the Texas Forensic Science Commission launch an investigation without having to wait for a complaint to be filed.

"It is a positive improvement," said defense attorney Sam Bassett, the commission's former chairman.

But some call the bill an effort to keep information from the public and ensure that the commission is under the governor's control.

"This has the governor's fingerprints all over it," said Stephen Saloom, policy director for the Innocence Project.

Bassett and other critics said they worry about provisions that would allow Gov. Rick Perry to appoint all commission members. Currently, the commission's nine members are appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. The bill would reduce the commission to seven members, all appointed by the governor.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, said that though he supports what the bill is trying to accomplish, he has "major concerns." Allowing the governor to appoint all members is "a fatal flaw," he said.

"This bill is still a starting point, and if it is not cleaned up, Texas will be worse off with it."

Others are concerned about a provision that would close the public's access to the commission's investigations. The bill would exclude all the information from being subject to the Texas Public Information Act. It would also limit the public's access to cases in which criminal charges are no longer pending or an appeal is in process.

"A central purpose in creating the commission was to create public faith in the investigations," Saloom said. "If you deny public access to all this information .. there's little sense in even having the commission."

On Friday, the governor's office deferred comment to the bill's sponsor, Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen.

"Senate OKs Forensic Science Commission Bill," by Brandi Grissom for the Texas Tribune.

State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, said SB 1658 was intended to clear up confusion over the role of the Forensic Science Commission, which has been embroiled in an investigation of the Cameron Todd Willingham case for about two years.

Willingham was convicted of setting fire to his Corsicana home and killing his three daughters in 1991, but he maintained his innocence. Following his execution in 2004, fire science experts questioned the evidence used to convict him.

The commission received a request from the Innocence Project, a New York-based group that seeks to exonerate wrongfully convicted people, to review the Willingham case for professional negligence in 2006. It took up the case 3 years later, but the investigation has been fraught with political uproar that has stymied the process.

The commission has approved a final draft of its report on the Willingham case, but the nine-member board declined to make a final ruling about whether there was professional misconduct or negligence on the part of arson investigators because it has been seeking clarification on its jurisdiction from Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Under Hinojosa's bill, the commission would have jurisdiction to investigate the work of both accredited and unaccredited crime labs. It would also be able to initiate investigations of forensic science procedures on its own, without an outside complaint. The bill would clarify that the commission's role is not to issue a determination of guilt or innocence in any case. And it would prohibit the use of commission reports in any civil or criminal litigation.

The AP report is, "Bill would refine duties for Texas forensic panel.  It's by Sommer Ingram and via the Beaumont Enterprise.

Hinojosa's bill would eliminate two commissioners, leaving a 7-member panel composed of a prosecutor, defense attorney and five other forensic science experts. He said the panel's new make-up will make the commission geared more toward expert advice and knowledge of forensics while adding expertise of the courtroom.

The legislation affirms that the commission's role is to determine whether any junk science is used in arson cases, but not to rule on guilt or innocence in the case. A report issued by the commission can't be used as evidence in criminal or civil court.

It now goes to the House for consideration.

Earlier coverage of the Forensic Science Commission begins at the link.

A Look at the FSC's Arson Work

"Forensics report on Willingham case advances good science," is the editorial in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission last week sidestepped the most incendiary issue facing them, but in doing so they focused attention on important recommendations for improving the criminal justice process.

A report has been expected for months on whether the commission found negligence or professional misconduct by investigators who concluded that Cameron Todd Willingham started the fire that killed his three young daughters in 1991.

The panel's conclusions on that issue could have broad ramifications not just for arson prosecutions in Texas but for the death penalty debate because Willingham was executed in 2004, though he insisted he didn't set the fire.

But commissioners are awaiting an attorney general's opinion on whether they have jurisdiction over cases predating the body's 2005 creation.

As a result, the lengthy report they approved Friday dealt largely with general findings derived from extensive hearings into the Willingham case.

The report reflects careful, thoughtful work by scientists and lawyers dedicated to the proper use of accurate forensics in criminal prosecutions.

And:

The commission called for a code of ethics; recommended that new data about fire science experiments be effectively disseminated; and said investigators should be better trained in documenting their debris analysis and preserving records.

A debris analysis report from the Willingham case couldn't be found.

Commissioners also recommended that standards be developed to reexamine cases "when science has evolved to create a material difference in the original analysis or result."

The state has an obligation to get things right, especially when there's no going back.

The Texas Tribune reports, "Bassett: Politics Stymied Willingham Investigation."  It's written by Aziza Musa.

The former chairman of a state forensic board applauded the current commissioners' report on the arson investigation used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham, a review that recommended wide-ranging improvements in fire science. But he said he's deeply concerned that politics interfered in their ability to take a stronger stance on the case.

"The level of controversy that an investigation might cause should not be a criteria for advancing the cause of forensic science in Texas," Austin attorney Sam Bassett wrote in an email to The Texas Tribune.

And:

Here's the full text of Bassett's email: 

I was heartened to see the hard work of the Commissioners in pushing through a report on the Willis/Willingham case this week.  The report is forward looking, as it should be.  It does appear to establish that the science which was largely the basis of Todd Willingham’s conviction was flawed.  We will never know if Willingham was innocent or guilty.  However, one thing is certain – much of the “expert” testimony used to convict him was not based upon sound scientific principles.  It is clear that the evolution of fire science showed this to be true well before the date of Willingham’s execution.   The Commission is correct to recommend that forensic entities (such as the State Fire Marshal’s Office) must take measures to inform and correct in cases where science evolves and/or changes.  It is clear that the State Fire Marshal’s Office should have done more to keep pace with science and inform fire investigators throughout Texas once NFPA 921 was published.  If they had done so, perhaps Mr. Willingham would have had a new trial at which the jury would have had the benefit of an investigation based upon good science.  Instead, those who could have done something to shed scientific light on the case did nothing and Mr. Willingham was executed. 

I am hopeful that the Commission will proceed to the final inquiry in the case – whether or not fire investigators and/or law enforcement committed professional negligence or misconduct during the course of the case.  Only recently, the Commission has chosen to seek the opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Texas on the issue of the jurisdiction of the Commission.  It is interesting to me that the jurisdiction question is being raised at this late juncture, at a time when the Commission appears to be seriously considering a finding of professional negligence or misconduct.   The jurisdictional question was considered when I was Presiding Officer and the Commission.  At that time, Commissioner Alan Levy (a prosecutor) and myself both believed the Commission was within its jurisdiction to investigate the Willingham case.  Now, it seems the question is in the hands of an elected official (The Attorney General) and I remain concerned that politics, rather than science, will influence the decision.

The Commission’s journey to this point was not easy.  If you recall, the complaint was originally filed in 2006.  At that time the Commission had no funding.  In 2008, after the Commission was funded, the Commission voted unanimously to proceed with the investigation.  It has taken almost three (3) years to reach this point.  To me, that is not acceptable to most Texans, myself included.  I hope that future investigations of this importance are not delayed in this fashion.  The level of controversy that an investigation might cause should not be a criteria for advancing the cause of forensic science in Texas.  My hope is that the Commission will grow to be more science oriented as a result of the Willingham investigation.  The persistence of scientists on the commission in 2010 and 2011 is what brought us to the point where we are today.  I thank them for their hard work.

Earlier coverage of the Forensic Science Commission report begins at the link.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Dave Mann's Reporting on the FSC Report

Texas Observer journalist Dave Mann writes, "A Nebulous End to the Willingham Inquiry."  I'm singling it out because of his earlier reporting on other arson cases, tainted by old science.  Here's the beginning of this must read:

The moment had an air of finality to it.

In a small hearing room in downtown Austin, eight members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission voted this afternoon to adopt their final report on the long-disputed arson conviction of Cameron Todd Willingham. It was a moment five years in the making. The New York-based Innocence Project had originally asked the commission to investigate the case back in 2006. So when the final vote was taken to adopt the report, an Innocence Project staffer and members of Willingham’s family—who claim that Texas executed an innocent man—applauded from their seats in the front row.

It felt like an ending. But what exactly the end result was—like so much in the Willingham saga—seems unclear. If this was the end, it was a nebulous one.

The commission’s nearly 50-page report—the product of a high-profile, frequently stalled investigation—is an odd mix. It documents at length the flawed state of fire investigation in Texas and details in general terms the kinds of outdated evidence that led to Willingham’s 1992 conviction for starting the house fire that killed his three daughters and eventually led to his 2004 execution. In that sense, it confirms the opinions of nine national experts who have examined the case and found no evidence of arson.

The report also makes 17 recommendations on how to improve the level of fire investigation in Texas. And, most importantly, it urges the Texas Fire Marshal’s Office to reexamine older arson cases for similar flaws.

Yet for all its documentation of general problems with arson evidence, the report rarely connects these flaws directly to the Willingham case. In fact, the report sidesteps two of the central questions: Were the original fire investigators on the Willingham case negligent and did the Fire Marshal’s office have a duty to inform the governor or the courts prior to Willingham’s 2004 execution that the evidence in the case was no longer reliable?

The commission refused to address those questions because it’s not clear it has the authority to do so. In January, the commission requested an opinion from the Texas Attorney General’s office on whether it has jurisdiction to determine “professional negligence” in arson cases.

The AG’s opinion is due this summer. But the commission chose to issue a final Willingham report anyway. It’s not exactly clear why the commission was in such a rush, though it’s worth noting that this was likely the last meeting for controversial Chair John Bradley. The Texas Senate is unlikely to confirm Bradley before the end of the legislative session. Perhaps Bradley wanted to finish the Willingham report before he’s removed from the commission and returns exclusively to his day job as Williamson County DA.

Earlier coverage of the FSC meeting begins in the preceding post.

More of Mann's arson journalism begins at the link.

FSC Calls for New Look at Old Arson Cases

"Texas science panel adopts arson recommendations," is the AP report, via Google News.  Here are extended excerpts:

A state panel on Friday recommended more education and training for fire investigators following its review of a case involving a Texas inmate executed after a fire labeled arson killed his three daughters.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission also recommended establishing procedures for revisiting old cases.

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004. Prosecutors accused the 36-year-old unemployed mechanic of setting the fire at his home in Corsicana, about 60 miles south of Dallas. A jury convicted him of capital murder and sent him to death row. His conviction was upheld nine times on appeal.

And:

Death penalty opponents have questioned arson investigators' testimony that led to Willingham's conviction and suggest he may be the first person wrongly executed in the U.S. since capital punishment resumed more than three decades ago. Several experts have since concluded the fire at his home was of undetermined cause or accidental but not arson, as two fire marshals at the scene ruled in 1991.

The commission on Friday completed an often tedious review of its nearly 50-page draft report based on Willingham's case and settled on the 16 recommendations for fire investigators, prosecutors and defense attorneys and lawmakers.

"We're suggesting somebody else is going to have to carry these things out," said Commission Chairman John Bradley.

The panel said Thursday that it wouldn't decide whether arson investigators were negligent or guilty of professional misconduct in Willingham's case until the Texas attorney general's office decides whether the panel has that authority.

The state commission can't exonerate Willingham or reopen his case but determines whether forensic science in such cases was sound. The eight-member panel won't make a ruling on negligence or professional misconduct by the fire's initial investigators until it gets word from the attorney general, a decision not likely until July. John Bradley, a suburban Austin district attorney and the commission chairman appointed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2009, had requested the legal opinion. After courts rejected appeals in Willingham's case, Perry refused to stop Willingham's execution.

"In general, I'm satisfied," said Stephen Saloom, policy director for the Innocence Project, which first raised questions about the case. "They were constrained by the AG's opinion and have had to overcome the chairman's relentless efforts to keep a lot of issues down. In the areas they're permitted to address, they've made some significant progress and deserve credit for that."

He called it a great improvement over the draft report released Thursday.

"They've gotten much more specific," he said. "It responds to the allegations as much as possible. This gives a chance for all those past cases."

The panel's recommendations also include establishing a code of ethics for investigators and making procedure for involving the state fire marshal's office in fatal home fires. The commission acknowledged the Texas Legislature controls the money needed to implement a number of its recommendations.

Another wants the fire marshal's office to adhere to standards established by the National Fire Protection Association and become a model for local fire investigators in Texas. They also urged investigators to keep original files of their cases and forward copies of documentation to other interested parties like prosecutors and defense attorneys. In Willingham's case, the Forensic Science Commission can't see arson investigators' files because they've been lost.

The commission spent lengthy time Friday debating a review procedure they said fire investigators should establish for resolved cases, a re-examination process common in medical settings.

Commissioner Sarah Kerrigan called it central to the overall report, saying results and interpretations like Willingham's from 1991 may not be valid years later. They needed to be looked at and "stakeholders" impacted by any new interpretations be informed, she said.

"Forensic panel urges new look at old arson cases," is the title of Chuck Lindell's Austin American-Statesman report.

Adopting a stronger call to action Friday, a state agency concluded its review of the Cameron Todd Willingham case by urging Texas fire officials to re-examine investigations that may have relied on arson evidence now known to be unreliable.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission also added language to its final report clarifying the role that now-discredited "arson indicators" played in Willingham's conviction on murder charges.

The commission's inquiry, focused on the arson science behind the Willingham case, was never intended to weigh the guilt or innocence of the man Texas executed in 2004.

But the report adopted Friday marked the first time a state agency has acknowledged that unreliable evidence played a role in Willingham being convicted of setting fire to his Corsicana home in 1991 and killing his three young children.

"It's a good report," said Stephen Saloom, policy director of the Innocence Project, a New York legal advocacy center that filed the Willingham complaint with the commission in 2008.

"It makes clear that the old forms of arson evidence are not reliable and need to be banished from fire investigation practices in Texas," Saloom said. "And this gives a chance for justice for all those past cases where people may have been wrongfully convicted of arson."

The report, adopted 8-0 with one member absent, will be posted on the commission's website Monday.

The final version urged the Legislature and cities to set aside enough money to ensure that fire investigators are fully trained in the ever-evolving scientific understanding of fire behavior.

The panel offered 15 other recommendations for improving fire investigations, including formal adoption of investigative standards outlined in a National Fire Protection Association document, NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigation, and establishing peer review panels to examine pending arson cases.

But much of Friday's efforts were focused on whether the state fire marshal's office — whose investigator was the prosecution's star witness against Willingham — has a duty to re-examine other past investigations that may have been influenced by now-discredited investigative techniques.

"If the science changes, if the interpretation of the case changes over time, is there an obligation to inform the stakeholders and the criminal justice system? If the answer is no, then we're really in trouble," said commissioner Sarah Kerrigan, a forensic toxicologist and associate professor at Sam Houston State University.

"Texas Forensic Science Commission approves report calling for improvements in arson investigations," by Erin Mulvaney for the Dallas Morning News.

The report approved Friday mostly addresses “forward-looking” issues, such as suggesting what kind of experts should be allowed to testify at trial, how a fire should be investigated, and education requirements for prosecutors and judges. It also encourages the state fire marshal’s office and local agencies to adopt national fire science standards and practices, conduct internal audits and adopt a code of ethics.

Although national fire standards have been updated in the last two decades, the state fire marshal’s office stood by the conclusions reached in 1991. In August, a representative sent a letter to the commission contradicting the fire experts’ opinions, saying the investigation was valid, even after the new fire science standards were applied.

Steven Saloom, policy director at the New York-based Innocence Project, which originally filed the complaint, said after the edits from commissioners on Thursday and Friday, the panel’s report is “excellent.”

“It’s an affirmative statement to bring order to the chaos of arson investigations,” Saloom said. “This gives a chance for justice for all past cases where people have been wrongfully convicted.”

The commissioners adopted language Friday urging the fire marshal’s office to create standards consistent with accredited laboratories, which inform criminal justice stakeholders about updated science that could have changed the outcome of a case.

“We all concur that opinions rendered in the ’90s could be different than today,” said Sarah Kerrigan, the commissioner who suggested the change. “If science changes, they have the obligation to inform the criminal justice leaders.”

If the agency adopts the policies, she said, it probably would affect only a small number currently in prison for arson. More than 700 are currently imprisoned for arson.

The national fire science guidelines were released in 1992, a year after the Willingham fire, and although the fire marshal’s office said it began to train investigators based on the criteria, it did not re-evaluate cases where people were sent to prison based on outdated science.

Dave Montgomery writes, "Texas Forensic Science Commission suggests changes for fire investigations," for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

A state commission reviewing the arson investigation that led to the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham made far-reaching recommendations Friday to improve and modernize fire investigations.

The report was praised by the Willingham family and a spokesman for the Innocence Project, which initiated the review.

The nine-member Texas Forensic Science Commission issued its findings after a two-day meeting to review a draft report, which was 21/2 years in the making.

The report stopped short of determining negligence or professional misconduct in the Willingham case until Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott resolves jurisdictional questions about the inquiry.

But even commission critics hailed the recommendations as a much-needed step toward improving the quality of fire investigations in Texas and addressing standards of investigative practice.

Willingham's three daughters died in a fire at their Corsicana home in 1991. Willingham was convicted of setting the fire and killing them, and he was executed in 2004. He repeatedly maintained his innocence.

"After soliciting and reviewing input from numerous sources, the FSC concludes that there was no uniform standard of practice for state or local fire investigators in the early 1990s in Texas or elsewhere in the United States," the panel reported.

The report's 16 recommendations could collectively prod state and local fire investigators to adhere to modern investigative standards that have evolved over the past two decades.

One key recommendation could lead to a re-examination of old cases using newer forensic techniques.

"Board Approves Report on Willingham," by Aziza Musa for the Texas Tribune.

The final version will be available to the public on Monday. The original draft report, released Thursday, made recommendations to fire investigators, lawyers and judges and explicitly says the board will not rule on professional negligence while Attorney General Greg Abbott's decision is pending.

Willingham was convicted of setting fire to his Corscicana home and killing his three daughters in 1991, but he maintained his innocence. Following his execution in 2004, fire science experts questioned the evidence used to convict him.

The commission received a request from the Innocence Project, a New York-based ciinic that seeks to exonerate wrongfully convicted people, to review the Willingham case for professional negligence in 2006 and took up the case three years later. But Gov. Rick Perry replaced his appointees on the commission and named Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley as chairman.

The board met twice in January 2010 to hear testimony and decide how to move forward with the Willingham case, but Bradley called upon Abbott's office to figure out whether they had jurisdiction over the case. Commissioners urged Bradley to move forward and begin drafting the report while awaiting Abbott's opinion.

Today, members discussed one recommendation to create a multidisciplinary panel that would review pending arson cases, and Commissioner Sarah Kerrigan said the board should add language that would establish the panel to review arson cases retrospectively as the science evolves. "We're talking about science," she said. "It will naturally progress." Kerrigan said there is an obligation to tell stakeholders in the criminal justice system when the science and interpretation of the science changes.

Commissioners largely agreed. Commissioner Lance Evans said the recommendation does not touch on the Willingham investigation. But Bradley argued doing so would step on the toes of the attorney general.

After nearly 20 minutes in executive session, commissioners decided that the report will now say, "Accredited disciplines of forensic science have standards that promote the reexamination of cases when science has evolved to create a material difference in the original analysis or result." The standards include a duty to correct, to inform, to be transparent and to implement corrective action, and the commission recommends the state fire marshal's office adopt those standards, according to the new report.

The FSC approved report should be available later today.  I'll update when it's posted on the FSC website.

In the next post, I want to highlight Dave Mann's reporting on the meeting.  Earlier coverage of the two-day FSC meeting begins at the link.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

FSC Issues Draft Willingham Report

The draft report is available in Adobe .pdf format.

Chuck Lindell posts, "Willingham report released,"

A draft report issued today by the Texas Forensic Science Commission on the evidence used to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham focuses on training and education initiatives for fire investigators and makes several suggestions for continued improvement for investigations.

The report, as expected, takes pains to say that it does not comment on Willingham’s guilt or innocence. It does not reach conclusions about the performance of arson investigators. It acknowledges that fire science has improved since the 1991 fire that killed Willingham’s three young daughters and lays out some of the modern scientific understanding of fire behavior on questionable findings in the Willingham investigation.

The commission will discuss the draft report at its two-day meeting in Austin, which begins today at 1 p.m. and continues tomorrow morning.

Commission members have insisted that their investigation would focus on the science and say nothing about the guilt or innocence of Willingham.

Even so, the inquiry has become a rallying point for anti-death penalty groups who argue that Texas executed an innocent man.

The Innocence Project, a New York legal advocacy group that filed the Willingham complaint with the commission, also has proclaimed Willingham’s innocence and criticized Gov. Rick Perry for failing to stop the execution despite receiving a last-minute report questioning the arson science used in the case.

And:

In March, I wrote a story examining the arson evidence used to convict Willingham and compared it to the modern understanding of fire behavior. The story concluded that today’s fire investigators are warned against basing arson findings on the indicators used to convict Willingham.

The Willingham report is last on the agenda and will likely be discussed when the commission’s meeting resumes at 9:30 a.m. Friday.

The AP report is, "Texas panel issues no ruling in execution case," by Michael Graczyk, via the Houston Chronicle.

A state panel looking into the case of an executed Texas inmate is taking no immediate position on whether investigators correctly determined the fire that killed his three children was intentionally set.

Death penalty opponents have argued the case of Cameron Todd Willingham could be the first instance of a person wrongly executed in the United States since capital punishment resumed more than three decades ago. The New York-based Innocence Project first raised questions about the case in 2006, two years after Willingham was executed for the deadly home fire 20 years ago.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission said Thursday it wouldn't issue a finding on the arson determination until the state attorney general rules whether it has jurisdiction to do so.

Earlier coverage begins with news of John Bradley's stalled nomination. 

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Bradley to Chair One Final FSC Meeting

"Texas forensic chairman to stay for arson ruling," is the title of Jim Vertuno's AP report.  It's via the Austin American-Statesman.  Here's an extended excerpt:

A Republican leader in the Texas Senate is stalling a vote that would oust the chairman of the state Forensic Science Commission so that Gov. Rick Perry's controversial pick can rule on a case that questions whether Texas executed a man based on faulty arson evidence.

Perry, who refused to block Cameron Todd Willingham's lethal injection in 2004, appointed Williamson County prosecutor John Bradley to take over the forensics commission and the Willingham case in 2009, just days before the panel was to hear a fire expert's critical report of the original investigation.

Several experts have concluded the 1991 fire that killed Willingham's three young children was an accident, not arson. Death penalty opponents have aimed to have the Willingham case become the first one in which a prisoner was formally declared wrongfully put to death.

While the commission does not have the power to exonerate Willingham or to reopen the case, it can rule on whether the forensic science involved was sound.

Once in charge, Bradley took steps to slow down the panel's work and has pushed members to find there was no misconduct by fire investigators in the original 1991 investigation.

The forensics panel is scheduled to meet April 14-15 to consider its final report on the case. GOP Sen. Bob Deuell, chairman of the nominations committee, told The Associated Press that he has been holding Bradley's doomed nomination without a Senate vote in part to allow him to preside over that meeting.

Bradley doesn't have enough Senate support for confirmation, and he'd be immediately forced out of his job on the forensics panel if he was called up for a vote and lost, Deuell said. If there is no vote, Bradley serves until the legislative session ends in May.

"Right now he knows he'll get busted," Deuell said. "The thinking is even from most of his critics, if not all, is that he needs to chair that meeting. We don't want a new person to have to start over like he did."

But it is Bradley's handling of that case, notably his comments that Willingham was a "guilty monster," that enraged critics who say Bradley is forcing his opinion on a panel charged with studying objective fire science.

Earlier coverage of Bradley's Senate troubles begins at the link; as is, coverage of the Commission's work.

The agenda for next week's FSC meeting is in Adobe .pdf format.

Notes From the Texas Legislature

"Bill to reduce wrongful convictions passes House," is the title of the AP report by Jay Root, via the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  The legislation is HB 215.

The Texas House, aiming to reduce the number of wrongful convictions, approved legislation Wednesday that would require law enforcement agencies to begin standardizing the way eyewitnesses identify criminal suspects.

The unanimously approved bill would require police to adopt written policies to determine how they conduct photographic or live lineups. Agencies would be encouraged, but not required, to develop blind procedures whereby the person administering a live lineup doesn't know who the suspect is. Judges still would be given wide discretion on what evidence to admit in court.

Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, said he sponsored the bill to cut down on the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Misidentification of suspects by eyewitnesses is responsible for 75 percent of the convictions overturned by DNA evidence, according to The Innocence Project, a non-profit working to free wrongfully incarcerated people.

"What it attempts to do is standardize how these things are done, and provide model polices, because a lot of people don't know how to do it, and to proactively look for ways to do a better job at lineups," Gallego said.

And:

The bill grows out of recommendations from the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions, named after the first Texan to be posthumously exonerated of a crime by DNA testing. Cole was wrongly convicted of a rape he did not commit in 1986 and died of complications from asthma in 1999 while serving his 25-year sentence.

The legislation faces another perfunctory vote in the House and is expected to move to the Senate as early as Thursday. If passed, it would apply to lineups conducted after Sept. 1, 2012.

The Austin American-Statesman's Postcard blog has, "Death-penalty trigger increase gets OK," posted by Mike Ward.

Legislation that would raise the age from 6 to 10 for which a child killer can be charged with the death penalty was approved this morning by the Texas Senate.

Senate Bill 377 by state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, would bring Texas closer in line with other states, most of which have age 12 as the age-based trigger for capital murder charges.

If victims are under that age, a murderer can be more readily charged with capital murder.

For several years, Texas has had the youngest age — at 6.

To be clear, this is a death penalty expansion bill. Currently, a person can be charged with capital murder if the victim is six years of age or younger.  This expands death penalty eligibility to killing a child age 10 or below.

In her Houston Chronicle column, Peggy Fikac writes, "Confirmation process may favor one Bradley."

One Bradley’s loss may be another one’s gain.

It looks like speak-his-mind prosecutor John Bradley’s appointment as head of the Forensic Science Commission will end with this legislative session.

But Bradley’s brother, the equally blunt David Bradley, may benefit if Senate Democrats also block State Board of Education Chair Gail Lowe’s appointment.

What’s more, if Gov. Rick Perry were to name David Bradley to replace Lowe after this regular session ends, senators might not get a chance to weigh in on the appointment until the 2013 regular session (barring a special session).

Perry’s appointments of Lowe and John Bradley are in trouble because a two-thirds Senate vote is needed to confirm nominees. There are 19 Senate Republicans and 12 Democrats.

A couple of Republicans have joined Democrats in opposing John Bradley. Senate Nominations Chair Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, said all the Republicans would vote for Lowe. But that’s not enough. Without a Senate vote, the appointees’ terms end when the session does in May.

David Bradley, a State Board of Education member from Beaumont, is a possible Lowe replacement. He’s a leader of conservatives who’ve made controversial social studies changes that even a conservative group said exaggerates biblical influence. Bradley once tried to insert President Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, in a reference to him in history standards.

Earlier coverage of the Texas eyewitness identification legislation and the John Bradley nomination, at the links.

John Bradley's Stalled Nomination

Rick Casey's latest Houston Chronicle column is, "Senate may save science from politics."

It may surprise some folks in the more liberal parts of the nation, but while Texas leads the nation in death penalty executions, it also took an important step in 2005 to lead the nation in improving the science that is used to convict suspects.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission was created to police the state's forensic science practices in the wake of the widely publicized scandals at the HPD crime lab. The seven scientists on the nine-member panel have worked vigorously to keep politics out of the panel and use it to promote more professionalism in a field that hardly works like CSI makes it seem.

But politics have plagued the commission for 18 months — ever since Gov. Rick Perry appointed Williamson County DA John Bradley to head the commission in an obvious political act.

Now it is time for the Senate to confirm, by a two-thirds vote, that appointment. Houston Sen. Rodney Ellis believes he has the votes to remove Bradley. Texans should hope he's right.

And:

In July, he presented the commission with an unsigned memorandum finding that it didn't have jurisdiction over the Willingham case and claimed it was "drafted, reviewed and edited through the combined efforts of the two members of the FSC who are lawyers, counsel for the Attorney General's Office."

When that was exposed as untrue, Bradley, who couldn't quite admit that he wrote the memo, joined in an 8-0 vote rejecting its conclusions.

Bradley's attitude toward the use of science was demonstrated back in 2002 when, on an Internet bulletin board for Texas prosecutors, he responded to a prosecutor who wanted a suspect to waive any further DNA testing as a condition of a plea bargain.

"A better approach might be to get a written agreement that all the evidence can be destroyed after the conviction and sentencing. Then, there is nothing left to retest."

The reason it should be destroyed is that if the defendant later shows evidence he is innocent, he might get his earlier agreement set aside.

"Innocence, though, has proven to trump most anything," Bradley wrote, as if this is a problem.

I asked him what interest the state has in destroying evidence, especially when scores of Texas convicts have been found innocent based on DNA testing after serving years in prison.

He said we need finality and painted a picture of thousands of inmates filing endless appeals.

That's an arguable rationale for a district attorney, but it is an untenable philosophy for the chairman of the Forensic Science Commission.

Peggy Fikac writes, "Dust-up at hearing could cost Perry nominee."  Her column appears in the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News.  She the Austin Bureau Chief for the two Hearst-owned papers.

It's not looking good for John Bradley, the tough-talking prosecutor named by Republican Gov. Rick Perry to head the Forensic Science Commission — and not just because of Democratic opposition to his appointment.

"The Democrats are not going to vote for him, and there are two Republicans that are not," said Senate Nominations Committee Chairman Bob Deuell, R-Greenville. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to confirm the governor's appointees. There are 19 Senate Republicans and 11 Democrats.

"He probably thought he could talk a couple of Democrats into voting for him. I don't think he can talk four" into it, Deuell said.

Bradley, who's Williamson County district attorney, has drawn controversy since Perry appointed him commission head in 2009, most notably over his handling of the high-profile Cameron Todd Willingham case. Perry had denied Willingham's request for a stay before his 2004 execution in the fire deaths of his children. Critics have said the pace of work on the case has been too slow and were dismayed when Bradley called Willingham a "guilty monster."

Bradley defended his work last Monday at a hearing under questioning by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston. who's been critical of Bradley. Ellis isn't a Nominations Committee member, but senators are given the courtesy of asking questions. The two had a dustup in which Bradley bluntly questioned Ellis' impartiality, noting that Ellis is chairman of the Innocence Project.

Ellis in turn asked whether Bradley has a conflict as a prosecutor and called him "God's gift to us." Bradley called Ellis' sarcasm "evidence of your bias."

Senators generally aren't addressed harshly by people seeking confirmation (or anyone else who testifies). Ellis wasn't the only one who noticed. "I think the committee hearing took some votes from him," Deuell said.

If there aren't enough votes to confirm Bradley, Senate leaders expect to let his nomination linger without a vote. His appointment then would be valid through the end of the session.

Earlier coverage of the Bradley nomination begins at the link.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Dallas & San Antonio Editorials: Bradley Wrong Choice for FSC

Today's Dallas Morning News carries the editorial, "Bradley’s nomination not worth fighting for in Senate."

State Senate confirmation of John Bradley as chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission is not going smoothly, which isn’t surprising, given his prickly, pugnacious, headstrong side that he doesn’t hide very well.

Those traits have crimped his effectiveness as chairman, and senators now have a chance to force a change. We think they should open the door to new leadership that can restore lost confidence in the commission’s evenhandedness.

Bradley’s willfulness hasn’t served him well as chair of a commission that’s dealing with the explosive case of the executed Cameron Todd Willingham. And it didn’t serve him well in dealing with tough questions this week on whether he ought to keep his job.

"Senate should reject Perry pick," is the title of the San Antonio Express-News editorial.

Serious questions about the forensic science led the commission — created to review cases of alleged negligence or misconduct that leads to forensic errors — to take up the Willingham case in 2007. Perry, who allowed Willingham's execution to proceed in spite of those questions, has a vested interest in seeing the commission's work stalled or skewed.

Rather than fulfill the mandate of the commission to the citizens of Texas, Bradley, as chairman, has done his best to serve Rick Perry. After a series of foot-dragging exercises over 15 months, Bradley finally allowed initial testimony to be heard in the Willingham case in January — coincidentally, just as the legislative session began.

Senators shouldn't be fooled, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Bradley has put the interests of the man who appointed him over those of the commission he is supposed to lead. That should disqualify him, plain and simple.

Earlier coverage begins with a link to the Austin American-Statesman editorial against Bradley's confirmation.  The Houston Chronicle has also called on senators to reject the nomination

Bradley Is the Wrong Man for Important Job

That's the title of the editorial in today's Austin American-Statesman.

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley's tenure as chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission didn't begin auspiciously and has been marked by missteps since then. We believe it should end sooner than its scheduled September conclusion.

The Senate should not confirm Gov. Rick Perry's selection of Bradley to lead this important commission that reviews forensic science used in criminal cases.

Bradley's apparent lack of dedication to the state's open meetings law and his use of overheated, pejorative rhetoric relating to the most celebrated case before the commission add up to more than sufficient reason to bust the nomination.

The quote below is from State Senator Rodney Ellis on the Senate's role in confirming gubernatorial nominations:

"The language in the Constitution is clear. It's advice and consent, not consent and consent," he told Senate colleagues. "And we ought not just kiss these folks as they roll through the door."

Removing Bradley now might not be the best thing in terms of moving the Willingham case to an overdue conclusion. But it is the best thing for the commission. And that makes it the best thing for the state and for justice.

Texans would be hard-pressed to find a more effective prosecutor than Bradley. But we believe Perry can find a more effective chairperson for this important commission.

Jordan Smith writes, "LegeLand: God's Gift to Forensic Science," for the latest Austin Chronicle, on stands today.

Ultimately, the committee voted 4-2 to pass the nomination on to the full Senate, with just Kirk Watson, D-Austin, and José Rodríguez, D-El Paso, voting no. Responding to the partisan distaste for Bradley's nomination, however, committee Chair Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, later pulled Bradley's name off a list of nominees to be considered this week. Reportedly Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst plans to play peacemaker to see if he can overcome Democratic objections to Bradley's confirmation. "We won't be bringing out Mr. Bradley's name for nomination at the present time," Dewhurst told reporters, according to the Houston Chronicle. "We're not withdrawing the nomination, but we won't be moving forward this week or next."

Earlier coverage of the Bradley nomination begins at the link.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Bradley Confirmation to Be Held Up

"Nomination slowed after Democrats balk," is the title of Mike Ward's report in the Austin American-Statesman.

In a bid to defuse a partisan showdown, the name of Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley was temporarily stricken Tuesday from a list of nominees to be submitted to the full Senate for confirmation.

Nominations Committee Chairman Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, said he plans to submit the list of Monday's nominees to the Senate for approval — possibly as early as today — without Bradley's name.

"I'm pulling him off the list for now, yes," Deuell said. "I want to let things settle down and then see where we are. If we put him out there now, (Democrats) would sever him (from the rest of the nominees) and block him.

"There's no reason to let that happen right now."

And:

Though pulled off the list, Bradley's name could be submitted for confirmation at any time, Deuell said. Three other nominees to the Forensic Science Commission that the committee approved Monday will be forwarded on for confirmation, Deuell said.

If the Democrats' opposition holds, and Bradley's nomination is blocked, it would be a rarity. Most gubernatorial nominations sail through for approval without comment.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he plans to begin talking to senators to see whether he can break the partisan block to Bradley's nomination.

"It may be that we'll want him to come in and talk with some (senators) one on one," he said. After that, "we'll see where we are on the votes."

He predicted the nomination will not come up for Senate discussion for at least two weeks.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram carries, "Texas Forensic Science Commission chairman's confirmation in jeopardy," by Dave Montgomery.

After 18 months as chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, prosecutor John Bradley is apparently facing an uphill battle to win confirmation in the state Senate but would be permitted to complete his term without an official confirmation vote, according to Senate officials.

The chairman of the Senate Nominations Committee, Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, said Tuesday that he does not plan to bring up Bradley's nomination right away because he lacks the votes to win confirmation. But he said some senators could change their minds.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the Senate's presiding officer, said he will meet with senators to discuss the nomination and expressed hope that Gov. Rick Perry's controversial appointee will be confirmed. But Dewhurst said that even without a vote, Bradley could remain chairman until his term ends in September.

Confirmation requires approval from two-thirds, or 21, of the 31 senators.

"Senate leaders put off vote on Bradley," is the Houston Chronicle report by Nolan Hicks.

Typically a routine procedure, Bradley's confirmation hearing on Monday was contentious, as the nominee and state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, traded barbs over the forensic science commission's handling of the Cameron Todd Willingham investigation under his tenure as chairman. Willingham was executed in 2004 for setting the December 1991 Corsicana house fire that killed his three young children. Willingham went to his death proclaiming his innocence.

Three separate investigations into the evidence and testimony at trial — conducted by the Chicago Tribune, the Innocence Project and the forensic science commission — cast doubts about the accuracy of the testimony provided by fire officials at the trial. Some experts have said the original investigators used flawed science in concluding that the fire was the result of arson.

In October 2009, Gov. Rick Perry sacked three of the commission's members, including Chairman Sam Bassett, just days before the commission was to hold a hearing on a report that cast serious doubt on the evidence presented at trial against Willingham.

Perry appointed Bradley to replace Bassett as chairman and Bradley promptly canceled the hearing.

Bradley told the Associated Press late last year that Willingham was "a guilty monster." He was chided by the commission he chairs for those remarks.

Criminal justice advocates and legislators have loudly criticized Bradley, complaining he's slow-walking the Willingham investigation to kill it.

"He's turned it into a bureaucracy," said Stephen Saloom, policy director for the Innocence Project, who said he has been to every meeting of the commission since Bradley took over. "Since he became chairman, John Bradley has done everything in his power to prevent or delay the commission from completing one single investigation."

Earlier coverage begins with the Nominations Committee hearing.

Senate Nominations Committee Recommends Bradley Confirmation

"Senate panel votes to keep chairman of Forensic Science Commission," is the Austin American-Statesman report by Chuck Lindell and Mike Ward.

Dividing along party lines after a contentious hearing, a Senate committee voted Monday to recommend that John Bradley continue as chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission.

Four Republicans, including Nominations Committee Chairman Bob Deuell of Greenville, favored Bradley.

Democratic Sens. Kirk Watson of Austin and José Rodríguez of El Paso voted no. Later Monday, Democrats began weighing whether to start a coordinated fight over Bradley's nomination before the full Senate.

Most questions at Bradley's nomination hearing touched on his commission's high-profile inquiry into whether faulty science played a role in the conviction and execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the 1991 arson deaths of his three children.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, spent the most time questioning Bradley and focused on a 2010 statement in which Bradley called Willingham a "guilty monster." Ellis questioned whether the statement was appropriate because it revealed a bias and undermined public confidence that Bradley was overseeing an impartial inquiry.

Bristling, Bradley questioned whether Ellis had his own conflict of interest in serving as board chairman for the Innocence Project, a New York legal center that has proclaimed Willingham innocent and filed the complaint that led to the commission's Willingham inquiry.

And:

Ellis is not on the Nominations Committee, but any senator may ask questions during a hearing. Afterward, Ellis said he planned to discuss opposing Bradley's nomination at an evening caucus of Democrats.

Other Democrats said that if all minority-party senators stick together, they might be able to block Bradley's appointment by severing his name from the list of nominees for approval. The 12 Democratic senators could then deprive Bradley of the 20 votes needed to bring his nomination up for a vote by the 31-member body.

Today's Dallas Morning News reports, "Senators grill chairman of Forensic Science Commission."  It's by Erin Mulvaney.

Williamson County prosecutor John Bradley collided with Democratic senators Monday over his actions as chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, the center stage for the contentious investigation into the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.

The Senate Nominations Committee ultimately approved Bradley with a 4-2 vote along party lines, sending his nomination to the full Senate. But before the vote, Democratic senators interrogated Bradley for more than an hour about his decisions as leader of the commission in the last 18 months.

The commission has investigated the Willingham case for the last few years. National fire experts have questioned the Corsicana man’s conviction in recent years, saying the science used to determine that the fire that killed his three children was arson was flawed.

Bradley was appointed as chairman in 2009, when Gov. Rick Perry shook up the commission just as it was about to hear from an expert who wrote a scathing report about the Willingham investigation.

Dave Montgomery writes, "Senate panel recommends confirmation of local forensic science panel members, 2 others," for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The Senate Nominations Committee voted 4-2 on Monday to recommend the confirmation of Forensic Science Commission Chairman John Bradley after he defended his stewardship of the panel in a testy confrontation with Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston.

The committee also unanimously recommended Senate confirmation of three other commission members: Fort Worth defense attorney Lance Evans, Tarrant County Medical Examiner Nizam Peerwani and Hidalgo County Medical Examiner Norma Farley.

The commission has been at the center of a controversy over its inquiry into an arson investigation that led to Cameron Todd Willingham's conviction for killing his three daughters in a 1991 house fire. The unemployed Corsicana mechanic was executed in 2004.

Baltimore fire expert Craig Beyler, in a report requested by the commission, has said that the arson investigation was based on outmoded forensic science, raising the possibility that the fire was an accident. Several other fire experts have reached similar conclusions.

During his 18 months as commission chairman, Bradley has been criticized by Willingham supporters for his handling of the investigation and for describing Willingham as "a guilty monster."

"Forensic Commissioners Answer to Legislators," by Aziza Musa is the Texas Tribune report.

The committee unanimously voted to nominate Evans, Hidalgo County Medical Examiner Norma Farley and Tarrant County Medical Examiner Nizam Peerwani. All votes will be taken to the Senate floor.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who sat in the testimony today, urged the Senate to reject the Bradley's reappointment. Commission members have not closed any investigations since Bradley was appointed, he said.

"Sadly, Mr. Bradley has used his position to seize power over and thwart the will of the expert Commission, hide the Commission’s work from public view, greatly increase the Commission’s bureaucratic bloat, slow its previously impressive progress to a crawl, and otherwise prevent the Commission from accomplishing the legislature’s intent," Ellis said in a statement.

Earlier coverage begins with an editorial and preview of yesterday's hearing.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

FSC Chair Faces Confirmation Hearing

"Reject John Bradley," is the title of this morning's Houston Chronicle editorial.

Today the Texas Senate Nominations Committee takes up the question of reappointing Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley as presiding officer of the nine-member Texas Forensic Science Commission.

One of the Senate's responsibilities is to operate as a counterweight to the governor in the approval or rejection of his appointees. That counterweight is part of the advice and consent that the legislative branch provides the executive branch. It is essential that the Senate actively vet candidates and not just act as a rubber stamp.

Bradley, as this newspaper has consistently reported over the past year and a half, has obstructed real debate and instead proceeded to perpetuate the governor's political agenda. He has delayed hearings unnecessarily. He has shown disdain for members of the commission and witnesses. He has proven himself to be an enemy of science, refusing to ask that arson be subject to state-of-the-art scientific analysis.

To Rick Perry, Bradley's shortcomings are just fine. The governor signed off on the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004. Perry denied a stay despite legal briefings that showed the scientific theories used to send the Corsicana man to Death Row were suspect. Bradley canceled the meeting that would have explored those potentially embarrassing issues.

Texas' failure to address its administration of capital punishment and its irrational reliance on discredited arson science has subjected the state to deserved ridicule throughout the country.

And:

We believe John Bradley has shown himself unwilling to engage in true scientific inquiry. He does not merit reappointment and the Senate should reject him.

Peggy Fikac's Chronicle column also focuses on the confirmation hearing, "Williamson County DA on the hot seat."

Prosecutor John Bradley is used to asking the questions, but he'll be the one facing them as the Senate Nominations Committee considers his appointment as chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission.

Gov. Rick Perry appointed Bradley — who's Williamson County district attorney - as commission head in 2009. Bradley immediately canceled a hearing that then loomed on arson evidence in the high-profile Cameron Todd Willingham case, at a time when Perry faced a GOP primary challenge from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Perry denied Willingham's request for a stay before his 2004 execution in the fire deaths of his children. Perry since has refused to release the clemency report he received. Hearst Newspapers has sued to try to obtain the documents.

Critics and some commission members have voiced concern over issues including the pace of the work on the Willingham case and Bradley's comments that Willingham was a "guilty monster."

The Nominations Committee will recommend whether Bradley's appointment should be confirmed by the full Senate. It would be highly unusual, though not unheard of, for senators to refuse to confirm.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, is among those planning to question Bradley during today's committee hearing. Ellis isn't a Nominations member, but senators generally are given the courtesy of participating. Ellis is among senators who have pushed for legislation to safeguard the justice system's integrity. He said he's for the death penalty but "it'd just be nice to get the right ones."

Ellis said the commission was created to help ensure that reliable evidence is used to "catch the bad guys" but that under Bradley, "the commission has invested most of its time and energy finding ways to avoid looking into problems and looking for loopholes to block the commission from doing what it was created to do."

"Williamson DA Bradley faces Senate questioning today," leads Jason Embry's First Reading blog at the Austin American-Statesman.

Bradley goes through confirmation process, TWIA board calls emergency meeting and some journalists say Perry has blocked them on Twitter.

The House is in at 11:30. The Senate is in at 1:30.

The Senate Nominations Committee today will consider the appointees to the Forensic Science Committee, including Chairman John Bradley, who is also the Williamson County district attorney. Gov. Rick Perry’s decision to put Bradley in charge of the commission in the fall of 2009 slowed the commission’s investigation into possible flaws in the investigation that led to the conviction and execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.

The Nominations Committee meets at 9 a.m. in E1.028.

Coverage of the Forensic Science Commission begins at the link.

Forensic Science Commission Seeks AG Ruling

Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter Yamil Berard writes, "State forensic panel seeks AG's opinion on scope of its authority."

Members of the state's forensic oversight panel are asking the Texas attorney general's office to clarify whether the panel has the authority to investigate negligence or misconduct by certain Texas forensic scientists and criminal investigators.

Among the questions the Texas Forensic Science Commission has posed is whether its scrutiny is limited only to labs accredited by the state Department of Public Safety, and whether the commission is prohibited from investigating forensic fields that don't involve the DPS. State law, for example, already exempts medical examiners from the commission's purview.

But the key point raised in the commission's request is whether it has the ability to investigate cases in which "the evidence underlying the forensic analysis was tested or offered into evidence" years before the commission was created in September 2005.

If Attorney General Greg Abbott says the commission may only accept cases based on forensic analysis collected in or after 2005, the commission may have to abandon its review of the high-profile case of Cameron Todd Willingham, the Corsicana mechanic executed in 2004 for the murder of his three daughters.

"In an abundance of caution," the commission voted unanimously to seek the opinion to ensure that its actions meet state law, said member Lance Evans, a Fort Worth defense attorney. The request was signed by commission Chairman John Bradley.

Critics say the action is yet another tactic to push back the final determination on the case of Willingham, who was found guilty of setting the 1991 house fire that killed his children. The Willingham complaint was filed by the Texas Innocence Project in May 2006, but the commission hasn't made a final ruling on it.

"This is clearly someone's legal effort to prevent the commission from doing what the Legislature had intended for it to do," said Stephen Saloom, policy director for the Innocence Project in New York.

And:

Evans said the decision to seek Abbott's opinion would not delay the commission's work.

"The request for an AG opinion has not shut down the commission," Evans said Monday.

He said he hoped it would be delivered by the commission's regular meeting in April.

Earlier coverage begins with the post, "Additional Coverage of Friday's FSC Meeting," from last month.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Additional Coverage of Friday's FSC Meeting

The Austin American-Statesman reports, "Willingham probe takes unexpected turn," by Chuck Lindell.

Adding an unexpected twist to its investigation of the science used to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham for arson murder, the Texas Forensic Science Commission voted Friday to seek an attorney general opinion on the limits of its jurisdiction.

The commission is examining allegations, made by fire scientists and the Innocence Project of New York, that investigators relied on bad science and poor techniques to conclude that Willingham intentionally set fire to his Corsicana home in 1991, killing his three young daughters.

The City of Corsicana and the state fire marshal's office, however, have long complained that the commission lacks the authority to examine their investigators' actions and conclusions.

On Friday, as they contemplated drafting a final report in the Willingham matter, the nine commission members voted unanimously to ask Attorney General Greg Abbott's office to determine whether Corsicana and the fire marshal are correct.

"It's been the elephant in the room the entire time," Commissioner Lance Evans said after the meeting in downtown Austin. Evans made the motion to seek Abbott's opinion.

In the meantime, commissioners vowed to continue working toward a final report.

"I certainly think we could make findings ... on the state of fire investigation back at that time, the evolution of fire investigation up to the present day and where mistakes might have been made," said Evans, a Fort Worth defense lawyer.

However, two of the most contentious questions will have to wait for Abbott's written opinion before they can be addressed:

• Did Willingham's investigators act negligently?

• Did the fire marshal's office have an obligation to correct old arson findings based on evidence now discredited by scientific advancements?

And:

In related action Friday, commissioners changed how the Willingham report will be written.

Originally, a four-member subcommittee was to draft a report during a public meeting and then present it to the full committee of seven forensic scientists, a defense lawyer and a prosecutor.

Now, commissioners will submit suggestions to the agency's general counsel, who will compile a draft report. Final language will be hashed out by the full commission in a future open meeting, Evans said.

"Texas forensic panel delays final decision in Willingham arson case," by Erin Mulvaney for the Dallas Morning News.

Friday, the panel decided to ask the attorney general’s advice on whether it has jurisdiction in the disputed case.

“I don’t want this to be interpreted as something that is going to prevent us from proceeding,” said Commissioner Lance Evans. “I want to continue making progress and not stay at a standstill.”

Since the panel took on the Willingham case in 2006, questions have been raised about its authority to assess the reliability of forensic evidence, in this case fire science. Its work was delayed in 2007 when Gov. Rick Perry replaced three members of the commission, before it planned to hear expert testimony.

At the meeting, the commissioners also decided to move forward with a draft report, but it will not touch on the questions referred to the attorney general. They next meet on April 15.

Willingham’s mother, Eugenia, said she was disappointed but not surprised that the panel did not make a final determination.

“I was very encouraged last time by the experts, but, of course, we have heard about 10 other experts say the same thing,” she said.

The final AP post, "Panel looking into Willingham arson inquiry will proceed with report," by Michael Graczyk, is via the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

"I want the commission to find a way where we can continue making progress so things do not come to a standstill," Commissioner Lance Evans said. "I would like us to move forward with all speed."

State law lets the commission make recommendations on overall practices and procedures performed by investigators but not sanction the practices or procedures, Evans said.

The panel's investigation started in 2006. It became politically charged in September 2009 when Gov. Rick Perry, who appoints its members and did not stop Willingham's execution, replaced the chairman and two other commissioners days before they were to hear from fire expert Craig Beyler of Baltimore.

He testified two weeks ago that the fire's cause should have been listed as undetermined.

In the original investigation, the lead investigator with the state fire marshal's office ruled that the fire was caused by arson started by an accelerant, and a local investigator concurred.

The assistant director of the fire marshal's office, who also appeared before the commission two weeks ago, stood by those 1991 findings despite contrary conclusions reached by Beyler and John DeHaan, a consultant from Vallejo, Calif. They described the original investigation as deficient and inadequate.

"Willingham panel will seek ruling on authority," is the Houston Chronicle report by Allan Turner.

At the center of questions about the commission's power to handle the Willingham case is the legislative language creating the body. The commission may consider cases regarding "forensic analysis" related to agencies accredited by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Evans said after Friday's meeting that whether such disciplines as fire science and arson investigation are legitimately "forensic analysis" is unclear. Also of concern is the fact that the DPS did not begin accrediting forensic labs until 2005 - 14 years after the Corsicana fire.

The accreditation question, Evans said, "is not a new issue. It's been the elephant in the room the entire time."

Evans said he is uncertain how long it might take to obtain the attorney general's ruling.

Nonetheless, he said, the commission can move forward with a final report on at least some aspects of the case such as the state of arson investigation in 1991 and how the discipline has evolved.

It is possible that the commission could issue a subsequent report considering whether early arson investigators were guilty of professional negligence.

Earlier coverage begins with Friday's post,"An Update on the FSC Meeting."

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

An Update on the FSC Meeting

"Texas panel to issue report on convicted arsonist who was executed," is the title of Michael Graczyk's
AP post, via the Houston Chronicle.

A Texas commission looking into an arson investigation that led to the execution of the man convicted of starting the fatal fire decided Friday to move ahead with a report on the case even though its authority is not clear.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission has been looking into the investigation of a 1991 house fire that killed three small children. The children's father, Cameron Todd Willingham, was convicted of setting the fire and executed in 2004. But the commission said it's not sure it has authority in cases that started before it was created in 2005 and has asked the Texas Attorney General's Office for advice on that matter.

The commissioners also have asked whether they have authority over investigators or agencies who may have not been accredited before 2005.

Still, commissioners decided to move ahead with their report without waiting for the attorney general's response.

"I want the commission to find a way where we can continue making progress, so things do not come to a standstill," Commissioner Lance Evans said. "I would like us to move forward with all speed."

State law gives the commission the authority to make recommendations on overall practices and procedures performed by investigators, but it does not have the power to sanction them, Evans said.

The panel's investigation started in 2006. It became politically charged in September 2009 when Gov. Rick Perry, who appoints its members and refused to stop Willingham's execution, replaced the chairman and two other commissioners days before they were to hear from a fire expert who later testified that he thought the fire's cause should have been listed as undetermined. That man, Craig Beyler of Baltimore, Md., finally testified two weeks ago.

The Texas Tribune has, "Commission Frustrated With Willingham Investigation," posted by Aziza Musa.

Members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission expressed concerns today about the progress — or lack thereof — in the case of convicted arsonist Cameron Todd Willingham before ending yet another meeting without a decision about the evidence used to send the Corsicana man to the death chamber in 2004.

After spending nearly an hour in executive session, the commission voted to compile a list of the commissioners' recommendations and draft a report. Commission members also unanimously voted for Chairman John Bradley to seek an opinion from Attorney General Greg Abbott on three issues: the broadness of the term "forensic analysis" and whether it applies to the Willingham case; if the case was in the commission's jurisdiction; and the Legislature's interpretation of an "accredited lab." 

Commission member Lance Evans said there are some issues the commission can address independent of the attorney general's opinion.

"Let me give you a hypothetical, and I'm not saying this is how it's going to turn out," Evans said. "Part of what we're doing is analyzing whether or not they followed the best practices of the time, and if those best practices of the time are still the best practices. There's nothing to stop us from writing a report and commenting on that. Hypothetically, I can see a situation where we go through a preliminary report that goes through all of those things, and then maybe a subsequent report that touches on the finding of whether there was or was not negligence."

And:

The commission is scheduled to reconvene on Apr. 15, but it is unclear whether Willingham will be on the agenda.

"I just don't want to see this sit," commission member Norma Farley said. "I want to see this move forward."

Earlier coverage begins with previews of the FSC meeting posted this morning.

FSC to Resume Willingham Consideration Today

The Forensic Science Commission meets today in Austin, and the Todd Willingham case is on its agenda.  The Innocence Project will be webcasting the meeting, which begins at 9:30 a.m.

Yamil Berard reports, "Forensic science panel set to deliberate Willingham case," in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

They've heard from the science experts and the lawyers. They've pored over instructional manuals about fire safety and quizzed investigators.

Now it's time for the state panel tasked with rooting out bad forensic science to roll up its sleeves and begin deliberations in the case of the Corsicana mechanic executed for setting the house fire that killed his three children.

Expectations are high from those who have closely watched the Texas Forensic Science Commission work for more than a year on the Cameron Todd Willingham murder case. At issue is whether faulty science led to investigators' conclusion that the fire was arson.

"What we really plan is for the commission really coming to a final decision to bring this to a close," said Stephen Saloom, policy director for the New York-based Innocence Project, which filed a 2006 complaint urging panel members to review the work of the arson investigators.

"I would hope they would do this in short order," Saloom said.

Commission members will meet today, but they haven't indicated how they will proceed. The agenda states that members are expected to consider the Willingham case and "assign report."

They will likely provide more details at the meeting, commission coordinator Leigh Tomlin wrote in an e-mail in response to questions. Also likely is that members will seek advice from new general counsel Lynn M. Robitaille.

"The agenda contains the full amount of information released prior to the meeting," Tomlin wrote. "All further details will be handled at the meeting."

That could mean that commissioners will dive into public discussion, now that fact-finding is done and other information has been presented. The discussion may include members' expressing independent opinions about the case.

"I don't think they've yet established how they feel," Saloom said.

Also, the commission could agree, as a whole, to ask the four-member investigatory panel it established months ago to write a report based on the commission's discussions. The panel is made up of Chairman John Bradley, a prosecutor; and members Sarah Kerrigan, a forensic science professor and chemist; Fort Worth defense attorney Lance Evans; and Tarrant County Medical Examiner Nizam Peerwani. If the commission does that, the panel would have to meet independently, then report back.

The AP report is, "Fire that led to execution returns to Texas panel," is by Michael Graczyk.  It's via the Houston Chronicle.

The disputed case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was convicted of the arson deaths of his three small children and executed, returns to the Texas Forensic Science Commission.

The panel Friday is considering testimony it heard earlier this month from experts who differed on whether the investigation of the 1991 fire in Corsicana was botched. The commission also is to order a report written about the case.

Earlier coverage begins with the post, "Commentary on the FSC Meeting," following the Commission's meeting earlier this month.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Commentary on the FSC Meeting

Rick Casey writes, "Willingham: Scientists vs. lawyers," for his column in today's Houston Chronicle.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission finally heard from scientists Friday regarding the controversial case of Todd Willingham, who was executed for killing his three children in a Corsicana arson fire in 1991.

Two of the nation's top arson scientists testified that Willingham had been convicted based on evidence that, looked at by today's standards and even by the looser standards of the time, could as easily be interpreted to indicate an accidental fire as an arson.

And:

The most relentless defender of the investigators, and attacker of the scientists, was Chairman Bradley. He failed earlier to quash the investigation by getting the commission to rule that the investigators followed the procedures of the time but that the conclusion was flawed by today's standards.

But he played the prosecutor to the end - attacking the conclusions of science he didn't like.

By statute Bradley is on the commission to represent prosecutors. (There is also a defense attorney along with the seven scientists.)

While prosecutors are supposed to seek justice, perhaps it's understandable that Bradley is very vigorous in defending criminal convictions.

It makes sense to have someone playing that role on the commission. The scientists deserve to be challenged. But it makes no sense to have a prosecutor as chairman of a commission whose mission is scientific, not legalistic.

The Legislature should fix that this session, allowing the commissioners to elect their own chairman rather than having the governor appoint one.

In Maine, the Biddeford  Journal Tribune carries the editorial, "Will Texas courts reconsider the case of executed man?"

The question of whether an innocent man died by lethal injection should be a top priority in Texas, which leads the nation in executions. In a state that executed 24 in 2009 and 17 in 2010, the possibility of condemning an innocent man is a powerful argument against the death penalty.

But death penalty supporters are reluctant to concede the fallibility of Texas’ system. So it is not surprising that prosecutors opposed the inquiry by appeals court Judge Charlie Baird into whether Willingham was wrongly executed. Last month, a county district attorney’s objections stopped the hearing with the claim that the judge is biased against the death penalty.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which halted the Willingham inquiry, has also stopped another court’s hearing on the constitutionality of death penalty. Lawyers for a man accused of murder sought the hearing after DNA evidence raised doubts about the execution of John Edward Green Jr. in 2000.

If either court finds that an innocent man was executed, it will raise the question of whether the  death penalty can be fairly administered. That’s why the guilt or innocence of John Edward Green Jr. and  Cameron Todd Willingham remains a matter of vital interest to all of us.

Earlier coverage starts with the preceding post.

News Coverage of the Forensic Science Commission Meeting

Here's the news coverage of Friday's meeting of the Forensic Science Commission meeting.  The next post will contain commentary.

"Texas panel re-examines arson execution case," is the AP report via Google News.

The execution of a Texas man for the deaths of his three small children in a house fire came under renewed scrutiny Friday as a state panel heard from arson experts who reviewed the evidence that sent Cameron Todd Willingham to the death chamber seven years ago.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission invited the fire experts to testify amid the Innocence Project's insistence that Willingham was convicted with faulty evidence and was innocent when he was put to death in 2004. The New York-based organization specializes in wrongful conviction cases.

Prosecutors in Corsicana, about 60 miles south of Dallas, have insisted Willingham's conviction and execution was proper, and the State Fire Marshal's Office has stood behind the arson finding.

Texas Forensic Science Commission chairman John Bradley said the board didn't plan to make a decision Friday and the session was an opportunity for members to ask questions. The commission invited four scientists to testify: Craig Beyler of Baltimore, John DeHaan of California, Thomas Wood from Houston and Ed Salazar of the state Fire Marshal's Office.

Beyler is among several experts who have challenged the conclusion that arson caused the 1991 fire that killed Willingham's three daughters. The chairman of the International Association of Fire Safety Science and one of the foremost experts in the field, Beyler wrote in a 2009 report that investigators didn't follow standards in place in 1991 and didn't have enough evidence to make an arson finding.

The opinions of a state fire official in the case were "nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation," Beyler wrote.

He was scheduled to testify before the commission in 2009, but Bradley canceled that meeting in an effort to close the case and have the panel conclude investigators didn't commit professional misconduct in the case. Other members of the commission rebuffed Bradley's efforts, leading to Friday's hearing.

Beyler insisted Friday that the cause of the fire should have been listed as undetermined.

"I haven't changed my opinion in the year and a half since I wrote the report," he said.

Chuck Lindell writes, "Experts criticize, defend Willingham arson investigators," for the Austin American-Statesman.

Two national fire experts said Friday that no evidence supports a finding of arson in a 1991 fire that killed three Corsicana children and led Texas to execute their father, Cameron Todd Willingham, in 2004.

Speaking at a special meeting of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which is examining the science used to convict Willingham, the invited experts had little positive to say about an investigation they characterized as incomplete and investigators they criticized for improperly jumping to unjustified conclusions.

"Everything documented post-fire was just as consistent with an accidental fire as an intentional fire," said John DeHaan , author of "Kirk's Fire Investigation," a widely used textbook. "You have really no basis for concluding this was arson."

But the commission also heard from an official in the state fire marshal's office who stood by the arson conclusion, saying it was reached after a thorough, professional investigation and supported by the evidence.

Assistant State Fire Marshal Ed Salazar admitted that in the years since 1991, science has determined that some of the evidence used to convict Willingham does not necessarily point to arson. But, he said, tests that found a combustible liquid under the front door and the presence of certain burn patterns support such a finding.

"They followed the protocols; they followed the practices that were available and being used at the time," Salazar said. "I believe the conclusions they reached can be scientifically sound."

The commission will meet Jan. 21 to determine its next step. At some point, a subcommittee will draft a report to present to the nine-member panel, comprised of seven scientists, a defense attorney and a prosecutor. Many of the panel's scientists pushed for Friday's hearing in hopes of gaining a more complete understanding of expert opinion on the controversial case.

"National experts criticize state's study of fatal 1991 house fire," by Erin Mulvaney for the Dallas Morning News.

John DeHaan, an expert from California who wrote Kirk's Fire Investigation, the most widely used textbook in the field, shared Beyler's view.

"There was no evaluation, at least reported in the documents I reviewed, to determine arson," DeHaan said. "Everything that was documented post-fire was consistent with accidental rather than intentional fire. There was no basis for concluding that this was arson."

DeHaan said he was dismayed that the state fire marshal's office stood by the conclusion of the investigators.

"Arson experts testify that Willingham investigators violated standards," by Yamil Berard in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

It was the battle of scientists versus lawyers at Friday's hearing on whether there was forensic evidence to show that a Corsicana man set the house fire that killed his three young daughters.

Two of the nation's top fire scientists told the Texas Forensic Science Commission that investigators had violated professional standards in finding that the fire that killed Cameron Todd Willingham's three young daughters was arson.

That drew a sharp response from Ed Salazar, an attorney with the state fire marshal's office, who maintained that the investigators were thorough.

"Are we calling them liars now?" Salazar blared at commission members. "What are you saying now?"

Commission Chairman John Bradley, a longtime prosecutor, argued adamantly that whether investigators were negligent is a matter of opinion.

"Different fire science experts can have different opinions," he told the commission.

Bradley has said that Willingham, who was convicted of setting the fire and executed in 2004, was guilty.

But the fire scientists, who gave no opinion on Willingham's culpability, were unwaveringly critical of the investigators' reports.

Craig Beyler, chairman of the International Association of Fire Safety Science, said the investigators should have ruled that the cause was undetermined because there is no forensic evidence that the 1991 fire was set.

"The cause is undetermined. ... I mean undetermined. ... I mean it like I mean it," he said. "At that point, it's just our personal feelings, and that's not what our profession is about."

He also said that the Texas investigators had failed to eliminate natural or accidental causes, in violation of professional standards.

"Arson probe that led to execution assailed," by Allan Turner for the Houston Chronicle.

Fifteen months after he first was scheduled to testify before the Texas Forensic Science Commission, Baltimore fire expert Craig Beyler on Friday finally got a chance to tell panel members how botched arson investigations helped send a Corsicana man to his execution.

And:

Beyler reviewed the work of state Deputy Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez, who died in 1994, at the request of the Forensic Science Commission. In his report, he described the veteran fire sleuth's work as "characteristic of mystics or psychics."

On Friday, Beyler accused Vasquez of failing to eliminate all natural explanations for the fire; failing to interview eyewitnesses or, if he did, ignoring what they said; and interpreting ambiguous evidence to support his conclusion of arson.

Beyler also faulted Vasquez for failing to investigate the possibility that the fire had been set by one of the children or by an intruder.

Rather than systematically explore possible causes such as an electrical short, Corsicana authorities "shoveled out the room and put it out the window," Beyler charged.

Vasquez, he said, not only failed to meet modern investigation standards, he disregarded the more informal standards of 1991 as well.

At best, Beyler said, the cause of the deadly house fire should have been "undetermined."

Science called 'flawed'
California fire expert and textbook author John DeHaan, a 41-year veteran of forensics labs who has set hundreds of fires to scrutinize how they burn, agreed with Beyler.

The science Vasquez employed in his investigation, DeHaan said, was "flawed."

Asked if the way the probe was conducted constituted negligence, he responded, "I would have to say, yes."

"Arson Experts Testify in Willingham Investigation," by Aziza Musa for the Texas Tribune.

Today marked the first time the Texas Forensic Science Commission heard testimony from fire experts. The commission, under former chairman Samuel Bassett, was scheduled to hear arson expert Craig Beyler’s perspective on the Willingham investigation nearly 15 months ago, but Gov. Rick Perry appointed new members, including current chairman John Bradley, who canceled Beyler’s testimony.

The Innocence Project’s Policy Director Stephen Saloom said the commission made good progress by “finally” hearing fire experts about the Willingham case. “I have great confidence they’re going to come back and make the right decision,” he said. “But we’ll have to see how it goes.”

Earlier coverage starts with previews of the FSC meeting; in the next post, commentary.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Innocence Project Webcasting FSC Hearing

As it has done in the past, the Innocence Project is webcasting today's Forensic Science Commission meeting.

As noted in the preceding post, Texas Observer journalist Dave Mann is live tweeting from the FSC meeting.

Forensic Science Commission Meets to Examine Arson Science

The Forensic Science Commission is meeting in Austin, today.

"Forensic commission to hear from experts again in Willingham case," is the title of Chuck Lindell's report in today's Austin American-Statesman.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission will hear from four fire investigation experts today as it continues to examine the science used to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham.

The special meeting in Austin, postponed from November, was sought by the commission's scientists to help them answer two key questions:

• What was the state of fire science in 1991 and 1992, and what were fire investigators then expected to know?

That's when two investigators used now-discredited techniques to conclude that Willingham intentionally set fire to his Corsicana home, killing his three young children.

• What responsibility did the State Fire Marshal's Office have to reopen its Willingham investigation, and similar arson cases, once the agency realized scientific advancements had vastly improved the practice of arson investigations?

The Dallas Morning News reports, "Forensic panel to hear from arson experts on Cameron Todd Willingham case."  It's by Erin Mulvaney.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission will hear from arson experts for the first time today about the investigation that helped send a Corsicana man to his execution, continuing its two-year review of the case.

The commission voted in a previous meeting to hear from an expert panel about the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was convicted of setting the 1991 house fire that killed his three daughters.

Since Willingham’s execution in 2004, experts have debunked the fire science and investigation techniques used to convict him.

The commission will hear testimony from Craig Beyler of Baltimore, John DeHaan of California, Houston fire official Thomas Wood and Ed Salazar from the state fire marshal’s office.

Beyler, whose testimony has been much-anticipated, was hired by the commission to review the case and wrote a scathing report against the Willingham investigation. The report said fire investigators relied on bad science, unproven theories and personal bias to incorrectly determine that the fire was arson.

Yamil Berard writes, "Expert testimony on 1991 arson investigation to begin today," for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

More than a year ago, the state panel charged with rooting out cases of bad forensic science was expected to hear testimony from one of the nation's top arson experts in the capital murder case of Cameron Todd Willingham.

Today, 15 months later, that expert, Craig Beyler, is scheduled to give his rendition of what happened during the house fire that killed Willingham's three children in 1991. Three other arson specialists are also expected to testify.

Willingham, a Corsicana mechanic, was convicted for setting that fire and executed in 2004. The Texas Forensic Science Commission is investigating whether junk science was used to wrongfully convict him and whether fire investigators were negligent.

"The commission is finally getting back to where it was -- it's taken them 15 months," said Stephen Saloom, policy director of the Innocence Project, which filed the original complaint with the commission in 2006. "It's extremely valuable that the commission finally get an opportunity to ask questions."

And:

The commission includes two members from Fort Worth: defense attorney Lance Evans and Dr. Nizam Peerwani, the Tarrant County medical examiner.

Peerwani has said that conclusions made by arson investigators in the Willingham case were wrong by today's standards. But, he has said, whether there is enough evidence to conclude that Willingham was guilty of killing his daughters is a question for the courts to decide.

Peerwani, whom Perry appointed to the commission a year ago, has listed flaws in the arson report that helped lead to Willingham's conviction and execution. Among them, he said, investigators were wrong to conclude that the fire that swept Willingham's home had multiple starting points and that patterns indicated the use of an accelerant. By current standards, none of the things cited by the investigators indicate arson, he said, but standards in the early '90s were evolving.

AP posts Michael Graczyk's "State panel reviews arson execution case."  It's via the Houston Chronicle.

The execution of a Texas man for the fire deaths of his three small children is coming under renewed scrutiny as a state panel hears from arson scientists who have studied evidence that sent Cameron Todd Willingham to the death chamber seven years ago.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission was set to hear Friday from a panel of experts amid insistence from the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal organization specializing in wrongful conviction cases, that Willingham was convicted with faulty evidence and was innocent when he was put to death in 2004.

Dave Mann posts, "On Friday, Willingham Inquiry Finally Goes to the Experts," at the Texas Observer.  Here's an extended excerpt:

Also scheduled to speak is John DeHaan—another giant in the field of fire science. DeHaan has written the book on fire investigation, literally. His Kirk’s Fire Investigation is the field’s most widely cited text. DeHaan, who’s based in California, typically testifies for the prosecution and has worked closely with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms over the years.

His testimony in several recent cases has landed DeHaan in some trouble. He offered the key evidence that convicted Curtis Severns—whose case the Observer profiled last year. (DeHaan testified that he believed Severns intentionally set the 2004 fire in his Plano gun shop, but the Observer investigation uncovered compelling evidence that the fire was accidental and that Severns is innocent. He remains in federal prison.) DeHaan also provided the key evidence that nearly sent a Louisiana woman named Amanda Hypes to death row for starting the fire that killed her children. Hypes was innocent, but DeHaan’s testimony helped get her indicted. She spent more than four years in jail awaiting trial. When the case was eventually thrown out due to procedural issues, DeHaan reconsidered his analysis and told prosecutors he was no longer sure of Hypes’ guilt. She was later released.  

But unlike those cases, DeHaan has said from the beginning that the evidence against Willingham was flawed. He was one of four experts who examined the case at the request of the Chicago Tribune back in 2004 and found the evidence of arson lacking.

The commission will also hear from Thomas Wood, an investigator with the Houston Fire Department. And from Ed Salazar, the assistant State Fire Marshal.

It was an investigator with the State Fire Marshal’s office, Manuel Vasquez, who led the original fire investigation at the Willingham house and who compiled the flawed arson evidence. Vasquez has since passed away. Meanwhile, the State Fire Marshal’s office has stood behind his work in the case, even though nine national experts have called the evidence outdated, sloppy and false.

This will be the commission’s first meeting on the Willingham case since its confrontational hearing in September, when the scientists on the commission rebelled against Bradley’s attempts to wind down the investigation. Instead the scientists voted to expand the inquiry and begin hearing invited testimony.

It will also be the first action on the Willingham case since Gov. Rick Perry was reelected. With the governor having secured another four-year term, the Willingham inquiry may be drained of its political implications and focus instead on the wider problem with arson evidence. There are still 750 people in Texas prisons on arson convictions. Quite a few are likely innocent.

Mann will be tweeting from the FSC meeting.  Mann has done excellent investigative reporting on forensics, including other arson cases.  You can read some of that journalism at the link.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

 

Additional News Coverage of 3rd Court Ruling on Wilingham Court of Inquiry

 As noted yesterday, the opinion and dissent are available in Adobe .pdf format.

"Appeals court rebukes Baird in Willingham case," is the title of Steven Kreytak's report in today's Austin American-Statesman.

An Austin appellate court ruled Tuesday that state District Judge Charlie Baird abused his discretion in handling an inquiry into the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, a Corsicana man whose lawyers contend that he was wrongfully executed in 2004.

The 3rd Court of Appeals found that Baird, who sits in Travis County, should not have held a hearing about the case in October after Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson, whose office prosecuted Willingham, accused Baird of bias and asked him to recuse himself.

"Judge Baird abused his discretion by failing to either recuse himself or refer the motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district," Chief Justice Woodie Jones wrote in the court's opinion.

In e-mails, Baird declined to comment on the ruling other than to say that he would forward Thompson's recusal motion to state District Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, who sits in Williamson County and is the administrative judge for the region that includes Travis County.

But it is likely that the motion will not be decided by the time Baird leaves the bench at the end of the year to enter private practice. The case ultimately could fall to Baird's successor in the 299th District Court, former Assistant District Attorney Karen Sage said. She declined to comment Tuesday.

In a statement, Barry Scheck, who represents Willingham's family and is co-director of the New York-based Innocence Project, said he was disappointed.

"We feel this is a matter of extreme importance, particularly to the Willingham family and to the justice system in Texas," the statement said. "We are determined to find a way to get an adjudication on the merits in the Texas courts to restore Willingham's reputation."

At the Texas Tribune, Brandi Grissom posts, "Appeals Court Says Willingham Judge Abused Discretion."

The three-judge panel today ruled that in response to Thompson's motion, Baird should have either recused himself or referred the motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district. The court granted Thompson's motion to recuse Baird and postponed the court of inquiry proceedings until the judge complies with the motion.

Mitch Mitchell writes, "Travis County judge ordered to reconsider recusal in Willingham inquiry," for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Others reviewing the appeals court's decision expressed disagreement more forcefully. "The bias claims that are presented in this case are ridiculous," said Cory Session, brother of Tim Cole, the only Texas inmate to receive a posthumous exoneration and pardon.

Thompson's motion states on the one hand that Baird supported Willingham's conviction and execution as an appeals judge and on the other hand opposes the death penalty because he received an award from an anti-death-penalty group, Session said.

Thompson cannot credibly argue both things in the same motion, he said.

"There is no way to tell whether Baird supports or whether he opposes the death penalty," Session said. "Baird has received awards from both defense and prosecution groups. No one ever said he was biased during the Tim Cole case."

Session also argued that the circumstances surrounding the Willingham and Cole cases are very similar.

"It's troubling that they would issue this type of ruling when the precedent has already been set in the Tim Cole case," Session said. "I wonder how they would differentiate what happened in the Tim Cole case with what could possibly happen in the Willingham case."

And:

On Jan. 7, the state Forensic Science Commission is expected to continue its look into the quality of the fire science that helped convict Willingham. Experts who have testified before the commission, as well as commission member Nizam Peerwani, the Tarrant County medical examiner, have said that the fire science used during the Willingham trial was faulty.

The AP report is, "Appeals court: Judge was wrong in Texas arson case," by Jeff Carlton.  It's via the Washington Post.

The recusal issue must be resolved before the hearing into Willingham's possible innocence can continue. A complicating factor is Baird's retirement at the end of the year. The judge did not immediately respond to a message left by The Associated Press.

The ruling is the latest setback for anti-death penalty advocates trying to prove Willingham's innocence. If he were exonerated, it would mark the first time an official in the nation's most active death penalty state has formally declared someone was wrongfully executed.

Last month in a different case, a DNA test on a single hair cast doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was put to death in 2000 for a liquor-store murder. The hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. The DNA does not prove Jones' innocence but does indicate there was not enough evidence to convict or execute him under Texas law

"The clock is ticking and it is running out," said Barry Scheck, the co-director of the New York-based Innocence Project, a legal center specializing in wrongful conviction cases. "The bottom line is we have been frustrated by an inability to get adjudication on the merits of these serious issues."

"Hearing delayed on possible mistaken Texas execution," is the AFP report, via Google News.

A court hearing to determine whether a man executed in 2004 was in fact innocent faced further delay when a Texas appeals court ruled the judge overseeing the case should have recused himself.

Cameron Todd Willingham's family is seeking to have his name cleared amid claims that the evidence arson investigators used in his 1992 trial was based on flawed science.

If the court exonerates Willingham of killing his three daughters he will be the first person officially declared innocent after being executed in the modern era of US capital punishment.

His family petitioned State District Judge Charlie Baird to clear his name and reputation.

Baird is known for exonerating Timothy Cole, who died in prison while serving a 25-year sentence after being wrongly convicted of being the "Texas Tech rapist."

Another man confessed to the rape after Cole's death and DNA evidence proved that claim to be true.

Earlier coverage begins with the post, "Appeals Court Rules in Willingham Court of Inquiry Recusal Issue," from yesterday.

All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Bring comfort and closure

That's the title of an OpEd by Cory Session in today's Austin American-Statesman.  It's a must-read.

As the brother of a man who was wrongfully convicted of crime he didn't commit, I am all too familiar with the pain that the relatives of Cameron Todd Willingham are going though now. My brother, Timothy Cole, died after serving 14 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. But my family was able to use a Court of Inquiry proceeding and a declaration of innocence to clear his name. That procedure provided us much comfort and closure.

Rather than comfort and closure, Willingham's relatives are getting a first-hand education in Texas politics. Willingham, who was convicted of arson and murdering his three children, was executed by the state even though days before his execution a prominent arson scientist, Gerald Hurst, submitted a letter to the governor and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals explaining that the critical testimony used to prove that Willingham intentionally set the fire was based on outdated arson science.

Former Texas Gov. and Attorney General Mark White, with the assistance of the Innocence Project, initiated a Court of Inquiry proceeding on behalf of Willingham's relatives to restore his reputation and to find out why he was executed after it was revealed that there were serious flaws with the arson evidence in the case. During a recent hearing, Judge Charlie Baird heard testimony from Hurst and another prominent arson expert, John Lentini. Hurst affirmed that there was no evidence proving arson. One by one, Lentini explained why each of the 20 factors used by the prosecution to show arson were inaccurate.

The only other evidence of guilt in the case was the testimony of a jail house informant. Lawyers introduced a handwritten letter from the informant recanting his testimony. The letter, which could have spared Willingham's life, was never turned over to Willingham's lawyer, a serious breach of prosecutorial ethics. Additional evidence was introduced that the informant received special treatment for his testimony even though he testified at trial that he wasn't promised any favors for his testimony against Willingham.

And:

For years, our family searched for answers. They didn't come in time to save my brother, but finally getting those answers enabled us to move on with our lives. The members of the state Forensic Science Commission appear to have had enough of Bradley's delay tactics and are poised to hear from their arson expert when they meet again in November. But the fate of the Court of Inquiry proceeding remains in limbo. It is my sincere hope that the Texas courts don't permanently bar Baird from issuing an opinion in this case, because Willingham's family deserves these answers, too.

Earlier coverage begins here.  All Willingham coverage is available through the Todd Willingham category index. 

An earlier OpEd by Session is noted; more on Tim Cole's wrongful conviction and posthumous exoneration, here.

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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

The Latest Commentary on Todd Willingham

If you missed Tuesday broadcast of the PBS Frontline documentary, "Death by Fire," you can watch the complete episode at the link.

"Junk science and the death penalty, a toxic combination," that's the title of an editorial in today's Houston Chronicle, and it begins the latest Todd Willingham news coverage.

It's been six years since Cameron Todd Willingham was executed at age 36 for the arson murder of his three young daughters at the family home in Corsicana in 1991. But his case is far from over. In fact, it has become a catalyst for an intense debate on Texas justice, on the prevalence of "junk science" in Texas courts and on the validity of the death penalty itself.

Willingham consistently protested his innocence, and even before his death in 2004, experts had raised serious doubts that he had set the fire that killed his children.

And:

If a court of inquiry finds Willingham innocent, it will be the first ruling in this country's modern judicial system that an innocent person has been executed for a crime he did not commit — which could have profound implications for the future of the death penalty, especially in Texas, the country's most prolific execution state.

But equally important is the issue of junk science, which is endemic in Texas courts, according to Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel to the Innocence Project of Texas. One solution he advocates is forensic labs that are independent of law-enforcement agencies - a policy wholeheartedly endorsed by Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos, who has been fighting for just such a regional, independent lab in Houston.

The forensic science commission, created in the aftermath of the colossal scandal that caused the closing of the Houston Police Department's crime lab in late 2002, is a good idea. We need to let it do its job - which is not to pass judgment on Willingham's guilt or innocence, but to review the scientific integrity of the evidence in the case. And the sooner we can get that independent regional crime lab up and running, the better for all of us.

"Bradley continues to undermine forensic science commission's credibility," is the title of Colleen McCain Nelson's post at the Dallas Morning News Death Penalty blog.  She's an editorial writer for the News.

Before John Bradley took the helm at the Texas Forensic Science Commission, plenty of folks worried that he would simply do the governor's bidding -- especially in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Unfortunately, Bradley seems determined to prove his detractors right, as he continues to thwart efforts to examine the outdated arson science that was used to convict -- and execute -- Willingham.

Bradley recently declared that Willingham was a "guilty monster." Other members of the commission rightly cried foul, noting that Bradley's pronouncement undermines the panel's credibility and objectivity.

And:

Also worth noting is Bradley's word choice: guilty monster. As luck would have it, Perry declared that Willingham was a "monster" when questions began to mount about Willingham's conviction. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though ... right?

In the next post, I'll link to fresh news coverage on the case.  Earlier coverage begins with this post. All Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

News Coverage of Friday's FSC Meeting

"Texas prosecutor denies showing bias in arson case," is the AP report, via Google News.

A Texas prosecutor accused of bias for describing an executed man as a "guilty monster" defended his comments Friday, while his colleagues on a commission investigating the case said he might have jeopardized the integrity of their inquiry.

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley said lawyers trying to clear Cameron Todd Willingham's name are using the case to further their effort to abolish the death penalty. He also argued that he has a First Amendment right to state his opinion.

"We are being used, and we should recognize that," Bradley said. "When do we get to respond to those lies? Who is going to correct the record?"

Willingham was convicted in 1992 of capital murder in the deaths of his three daughters and executed in 2004.

Bradley chairs the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which is investigating whether fire investigators committed professional misconduct in determining arson caused the 1991 Corsicana house fire that killed Willingham's daughters. At least nine fire experts have said the fire was an accident, not arson.

Other commission members said Bradley's remarks to The Associated Press, in which he described Willingham as a "guilty monster," raise questions about the impartiality and integrity of their inquiry.

"There is a difference between correcting the record and making the type of statement we are talking about," said Sarah Kerrigan, the laboratory director at the Sam Houston State regional crime lab.

Chuck Lindell writes, "Panel chides Bradley for calling Willingham 'guilty monster'," for the Austin American-Statesman.

Chairman John Bradley's statement, made recently to The Associated Press, could damage the commission's credibility and raises questions about its objectivity, member Sarah Kerrigan said during Friday's commission meeting.

"We have no jurisdiction on guilt or innocence. It really muddies the waters, and it's confusing to the public when we go on record making statements on guilt or innocence," said Kerrigan, a forensic toxicologist and associate professor at Sam Houston State University.

Commission member Garry Adams, with Texas A&M University's College of Veterinary Medicine, urged Bradley to focus on questions of science and be careful when opining on a pending investigation.

And:

Kerrigan steered the conversation toward the propriety of Bradley's statements about Willingham's guilt.

Bradley had been criticizing the motives behind Baird's inquiry when he said: "What they are interested in is finding the poster boy for the abolition of the death penalty. And they want to make Willingham that poster boy. And they chose poorly, because Willingham is a guilty monster."

Bradley said Friday that he formed his opinion after reading the Willingham trial transcripts and investigative records, but added that he is able to separate his opinion from his evaluation of the forensic science involved.

But six of the seven other commission members present at the meeting voiced disapproval or discomfort with the statement from Bradley, who also is chairman of the four-member investigative subcommittee looking into the Willingham case.

"What troubles me is that the public may now become concerned that the commission has lost sight of (its job) to discuss the forensic science involved," said commission member Lance Evans, a Fort Worth defense lawyer.

Adams urged Bradley to rise above distractions from Willingham supporters.

"The state forensic panel criticized their leader for calling Cameron Todd Willingham 'a guilty monster', by Erin Mulvaney for the Dallas Morning News.

Stephen Saloom, policy director at the Innocence Project, the New York-based group that originally filed a complaint about the case, said it is clear that Bradley has lost focus about the purpose of the commission, which is to identify when bad science is tainting the criminal justice system.

Bradley has sought to change the direction of the commission since Perry upended the board last year and appointed new members, just days before it was to hear the Willingham case.

During the meeting, board member Garry Adams, from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University, said the commission has a commitment to do what is right regardless of outside factors.

"We are commissioners, and we need to be forthright, objective and neutral," Adams said. "In order to maintain credibility and objectivity in the state we serve to be careful what we say on our own opinions when we are investigating."

"Texas Forensic Science Commission members at odds over chairman's comment on Willingham," by Dave Montgomery for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The dustup came after the Innocence Project's policy director, Stephen Saloom, wrote commission members criticizing Bradley's remarks and suggesting that the panel consider whether there is "any appropriate action to be taken in the wake of the statement."

Saloom, who attended Friday's meeting, wrote that Bradley's statement "raises questions about the propriety of his leading the Commission's work through this investigation, and perhaps its work as a whole." The statement, he said, is "disturbingly similar" to remarks by Perry, who has called Willingham a "monster."

"‘Guilty monster’ remark lights fire under arson panel," by Allan Turner for the Houston Chronicle.

"I don't need to know whether Willingham moved his car or what kind of husband he was," Kerrigan said after Bradley criticized her for failing to read the entire trial transcript.

In other action, commissioners discussed rescheduling a November session in which they hope to interview fire experts about the case.

They also agreed to drop testimony from Florida fire authority John Lentini, who was a key witness in Thursday's court of inquiry conducted by State District Judge Charles Baird.

Austin's 3rd Court of Appeals issued an injunction Thursday barring Baird from ruling in the case after Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson raised concerns over the judge's authority to conduct the hearing.

The court of inquiry, requested by the Innocence Project, potentially could posthumously clear Willingham of the crime and "restore his reputation."

Earlier coverage begins with the preceding post.

A Lot of Todd Willingham News & Developments

As the Court of Inquiry was ending, the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals ordered a halt to the special hearing.  On another front the Forensic Science Commission is set to take up the Willingham/arson forensics investigation again.

"Family’s Effort to Clear Name Frames Debate on Executions," is the report in today's New York Times written by John Schwartz.

It was an unusual hearing. The subject at the center of it all, Cameron Todd Willingham, was not present. After being convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire, he was executed in 2004.

Members of Mr. Willingham’s family, working with lawyers who oppose the death penalty, had asked for the rare and controversial hearing, held here on Thursday, to investigate whether Mr. Willingham was wrongfully convicted. They argue that the proceeding, known as a court of inquiry, could restore Mr. Willingham’s reputation, a right guaranteed under Texas law, even to the dead.

But they also say that the hearing is more than symbolic — it could cast in a new light the Lone Star State’s record on executions. And more broadly, they argue, it is a cautionary tale about the power of flawed science to sway a courtroom, and a glaring injustice that could affect debates over the fairness of the death penalty.

That debate has been framed, in part, by a 2006 opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court, in which he said that the dissent in a case had not cited “a single case — not one — in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit.”

Many who oppose the death penalty have taken Justice Scalia’s statement as a challenge, and argue that the Willingham case is their proof.

And:

At the end of the day, however, as testimony was closing down, the Texas Third Court of Appeals in Austin issued a stay at Mr. Thompson’s request, ordering Judge Baird not to hold further proceedings or to issue rulings until next Friday, and asked the Willingham team to explain why the case should be allowed to go forward.

The focus of lawyers for Mr. Willingham’s family was on evidence presented by fire marshals at Mr. Willingham’s original trial — evidence that nine experts have said included “many critical errors,” as one report put it. Several of the experts were working at the request of the Innocence Project, an organization that seeks the acquittal of wrongfully convicted people.

The expert who wrote that critical report, Gerald Hurst, argued that evidence suggested the fire was accidental, not arson. His report was sent to Gov. Rick Perry shortly before the execution, but Mr. Perry declined to halt or delay the procedure.

The evidence presented at trial that Mr. Willingham committed arson “amounts to junk science,” Gerald H. Goldstein, a San Antonio lawyer arguing on behalf of the Willingham family, said in the courtroom.

Judge Baird asked Dr. Hurst at the hearing whether his review of the case could rule out arson “within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.”

Dr. Hurst demurred. “I never had a case where I could exclude arson,” he said. “It’s not possible to do that.”

The judge then asked if “there’s nothing in the evidence you’ve seen here that suggests arson.”

“That’s correct,” Dr. Hurst said.

John Lentini, a fire expert who has studied flawed arson investigations, hammered at the evidence and analysis from fire marshals at the Willingham trial.

Under questioning by Barry Scheck, a founder of the Innocence Project, Mr. Lentini ridiculed critical testimony at the trial that 20 factors, including burn patterns on the floor and cracks in the windows, proved that Mr. Willingham spread accelerants to fuel the fire.

No such chemicals were found in the house, Mr. Lentini said. Much of the analysis of Manuel Vasquez, the state fire marshal in the Willingham trial, “didn’t even meet the standards of 1991,” a time that Mr. Lentini characterized as having “a wretched state of the art.”

The current fire marshal, Paul Maldonado, stands by the work of the original marshals in the Willingham case, which Mr. Lentini said he found mystifying.

Mr. Lentini said that the flaws in the science required the state to go back and take a new look at other arson convictions. “I can understand why the fire marshal doesn’t want to go back and review hundreds of cases,” he said. “But that’s probably his duty.”

Governor Perry has fought the review of the case, and declined to participate in the hearing. Katherine Cesinger, his spokeswoman, said, “Nothing the Austin court does can change the fact that Todd Willingham was convicted in a trial court with the appropriate jurisdiction, and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers for murdering his three young daughters.”

The AP report is, "Appeals court stops hearing in Texas arson case," via Google News.

A state appeals court halted a hearing Thursday that was to determine whether Texas wrongfully executed a man based on faulty arson evidence.

The court granted an emergency stay and ordered District Judge Charlie Baird not to rule on the case. The order gives Innocence Project lawyers seeking to clear Cameron Todd Willingham's name until Oct. 22 to respond.

Willingham was executed in 2004 after being convicted of setting fire to his Corsicana home, killing his three daughters. If he is exonerated, it would mark the first time an official in the nation's most active death penalty state has formally declared that someone was wrongfully executed.

Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson, whose office convicted Willingham in 1992, sought the stay after Baird declined to recuse himself. Thompson has questioned Baird's impartiality, noting he received an award this year from the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

"Forensics panel resumes probe of Texas arson case," is an AP brief, via the Houston Chronicle.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission is scheduled to meet Friday in Austin and discuss the Cameron Todd Willingham case. The meeting comes a day after a state appeals court in Austin halted a hearing into whether Willingham might be innocent of the 1991 fire that killed his three daughters.

"Appellate court orders halt to Willingham inquiry," by Steven Kreytak, in the Austin American-Statesman.

Thursday's inquiry began with an aggressive attack on a deputy state fire marshal's 1991 investigation into the fire at Willingham's house.

Florida fire expert John Lentini attacked the findings of Manuel Vasquez, now deceased, in which Vasquez cited what he said were 20 indicators of arson at the small, wood-framed house.

"None of them, not one, say this is a set fire," Lentini said.

With the help of a PowerPoint presentation, Lentini walked Baird through each of the reasons Vasquez cited in determining the fire was intentionally set. He noted, for example, that Vasquez found that charring on the floor of the home was proof that an accelerant was used because "fire doesn't go down unless it has help."

"That's wrong," Lentini said. He explained how all combustible material inside a room catches fire, including the floor, during a frequent fire event called a flashover.

Lentini attacked Vasquez's findings that burn patterns on the floor are also proof that an accelerant was used, noting that those patterns are caused when objects on the floor protect certain areas of flooring from the fire.

He said arson investigators at one time believed that "V" patterns of fire damage showed points of origin and that multiple "V" patterns was an indicator that a fire was set in multiple places and therefore arson.

Now, Lentini said, fire scientists know that "V" patterns are often present near doors and windows, places where air fuels the fire.

Lentini said that nine fire experts have concluded after reviewing the reports, pictures and videos from the Willingham investigation that there is not a shred of evidence that the fire was intentionally set. He said he has heard from only one expert who disagrees, but said that opinion is based on Willingham's behavior after the fire and other evidence, not on the science.

Lentini also attacked current state Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado, whose office was also invited to participate in the inquiry, for announcing in August that the office stands behind the original findings in the case. He suggested that Maldonado, who could not be reached for comment, was trying to avoid having to re-examine other convictions that resulted from the flawed science.

Baird also watched a presentation by Goldstein dismantling the credibility of Johnny Everett Webb, who testified at Willingham's trial that Willingham had confessed to him while in jail.

In response to Webb's claim that the fire was meant to cover injuries inflicted by Willingham's wife to one of the girls, Goldstein submitted autopsy reports that show no physical injuries to the girls.

Goldstein said Webb has mental health issues and on two separate occasions has stated that his testimony about Willingham's confession was false.

White made a closing argument in which he noted that he supports the death penalty but that he believes that it should only be used in cases where evidence is overwhelming because of the "frailties in the system exposed by Willingham's case."

He called on Baird to restore Willingham's name.

"The state of the testimony that convicted him has been impugned today," White said. "Every shred of evidence points conclusively to his innocence."

"Court blocks ruling in death-penalty inquiry," by Dave Montgomery and Yamil Bareard in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

"Every shred of evidence points conclusively to his innocence," said former Gov. Mark White, one of the attorneys representing the family. White and other attorneys also criticized Gov. Rick Perry's decision to allow the execution to go forward in spite of a last-minute report from one of the fire experts, Dr. Gerald Hurst, who testified Thursday that he was never contacted by the governor's office or other officials in response to his findings.

Perry has repeatedly defended his handling of the case, describing Willingham as a "monster" whose appeals were rejected by nine state and federal courts.

"Regardless of how the proceedings play out, the bottom line is nothing the Austin court does can change the fact that Todd Willingham was convicted in a trial court with the appropriate jurisdiction, and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers for murdering his three young daughters," said Lucy Nashed, a Perry spokesperson.

Perry's office, Navarro County prosecutors and officials with the State Fire Marshal's Office declined Baird's invitation to appear at the proceedings, essentially allowing the Willingham attorneys to present their case without a challenge from the other side. Baird announced that he had extended an invitation to Willingham's ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, who has said her husband told her he deliberately set the fire, but Kuykendall's attorney sent word Thursday that she would not appear.

"Unfortunately, every time the anti-death penalty advocates renew their crusade against capital punishment using this case, old wounds are opened up for her," wrote the attorney, former U.S. prosecutor Johnny Sutton.

The inquiry was concluded in under four hours as the Willingham team presented testimony from Hurst- and Florida-based fire expert John Lentini.

"Court stops hearing in Willingham execution," by Allan Turner for the Houston Chronicle.

As Willingham's mother and cousin sat stiffly on the courtroom's front bench, fire experts Gerald Hurst and John Lentini testified that not only was a fire inspector's testimony in Willingham's trial based on bad science but that his interpretations were "totally off the wall."

Thursday's testimony came in a court of inquiry one day before the Texas Forensic Science Commission was set to hold a meeting in Austin. Willingham's case is on today's commission agenda.

"Texas judge opens hearing into disputed 2004 execution," by Matt Smith at CNN.

Navarro County District Attorney Lowell Thompson last week asked Baird to step aside. Thompson argued that the judge's impartiality was called into question by the fact that he sat on the state Court of Criminal Appeals when it upheld Willingham's conviction and wrote a concurring opinion supporting the ruling. In addition, he argued, Baird received an award in February from the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Baird rejected Thompson's motion Thursday, finding that the prosecutor's office was not a party to the family's request for a "court of inquiry," a rare proceeding under Texas law.

"I just don't believe that you, in your capacity as the Navarro County district attorney, are a part of this lawsuit," Baird said.

Thompson left the courtroom after the ruling without participating in Thursday's hearing, which was held to determine whether there is enough evidence of a wrongful conviction to open a court of inquiry. The proceedings are separate from the long-running investigation being conducted by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which is scheduled to take up the Willingham case again Friday.

Willingham's relatives have the support of The Innocence Project, which requested the Forensic Science Commission's investigation. The group's founder, defense lawyer Barry Scheck, appeared in court Thursday to argue for a court of inquiry, telling Baird the testimony of a state fire marshal who was the prosecution's key witness was "completely wrong and misleading."

Earlier coverage begins here.

Willingham Court of Inquiry Coverage

"Judge postpones Willingham case," is the title of this morning's Austin American-Statesman report by Steven Kreytak.

A much-anticipated inquiry into whether Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongly executed in 2004 was postponed Wednesday after state District Judge Charlie Baird said he needed more time to review a motion seeking his recusal from the case and to allow lawyers for Willingham’s family to respond.

Baird announced to his packed Travis County courtroom that he would reset the proceedings for Oct. 14 at 1:30 p.m.

Willingham was convicted of capital murder in the deaths of his three young daughters, who died from a fire at his Corsicana home in 1991. He publicly maintained his innocence until his death.

Shortly before he was executed, the first in what would become a string of experts concluded that there was no scientific basis to determining that the fire was intentionally set. Those experts said the two fire investigators who originally worked the case and who testified at Willingham’s trial relied on disproven theories.

And:

Earlier Wednesday, Willingham’s ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, stood outside the Blackwell-Thurman Criminal Justice Center and said she believes Willingham was guilty of killing their three daughters.

Kuykendall said that when she visited death row before his 2004 execution, Willingham admitted to setting the fire because she had threatened to divorce him the night before.

“I think about my daughters every day, and I miss them,” said Kuykendall, who was joined by her lawyer, Johnny Sutton, a former U.S. attorney.

Kuykendall first said about a year ago that Willingham had confessed, claims that were attacked in a blog post by The New Yorker magazine’s David Grann that was published a month after he wrote a story on the case.

Grann noted that in statements following the crime and at Willingham’s trial, Kuykendall never mentioned that she had threatened to divorce him the night before the fire, and that after visiting her husband prior to his execution, a private investigator and two Chicago Tribune reporters asked her whether Willingham confessed to her and she said, “No.”

If the hearing in Baird’s court is held, it will not include Gov. Rick Perry. Baird said before the hearing that he had received a letter from Perry general counsel Caren Burbach declining Baird’s invitation for the governor or someone from his office to participate. In the letter, Burbach questioned whether Baird had the jurisdiction to hear Willingham’s case and noted that multiple levels of state and federal courts had upheld Willingham’s conviction.

Baird responded from the bench that “these were pretty much exactly the same proceedings that we engaged in on behalf of Mr. Timothy Cole, who the governor later recognized and who was posthumously pardoned by the governor.”

Dave Montgomery writes, "Judge postpones Willingham inquiry," for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

After lawyers, spectators and reporters gathered in Baird's 299th District Court for the hearing, Baird announced that the inquiry would be postponed until Oct. 14 to give the family's lawyers time to prepare a response to a motion calling for Baird to recuse himself. The motion by current Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson questions Baird's impartiality and contends that the Baird is not following proper procedure in convening the inquiry.

Baird also read a letter from Caren Burbach, general counsel to Gov. Rick Perry, declining Baird's invitation to participate, saying the family's petition and Baird's court of inquiry "appear to be improper collateral attacks upon a final judgment against a man found guilty of murdering his three children."

"Willingham had full access to every level of the appeals process and his conviction was reviewed and upheld by multiple levels of state and federal courts," Burbach wrote, contending that there was no clear basis for a court of inquiry.

Perry has defended the execution, describing Willingham as "a monster."

In February 2009, Baird presided over a court of inquiry that exonerated Tim Cole of Fort Worth after DNA evidence proved that Cole was wrongfully convicted in the rape of a Texas Tech student. Baird noted on Wednesday that Perry recognized that decision and later granted Cole a posthumous pardon.

Today's Houston Chronicle carries, "Willingham inquiry delayed after judge challenged," by Allan Turner.

The so-called court of inquiry, which posthumously could have cleared Willingham, was requested by the Innocence Project on behalf of Willingham's family. The same group earlier filed a complaint with the Texas Forensic Science Commission claiming that arson investigations in the case were faulty.

The forensic science commission is scheduled to hold its next meeting on the matter in Austin next Friday.

In his motion for Baird's recusal, Thompson noted that the veteran judge was a member of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals when it upheld Willingham's conviction. Further, he charged, state law for setting up courts of inquiry was not followed.

If Baird thought the Innocence Project's hearing request had potential merit, Thompson said, Baird should have referred the issue to the judicial district's top judge so that another of his colleagues could be appointed to hear the case.

Baird adjourned his court when San Antonio lawyer Gerald Goldstein, representing the Innocence Project, said he wanted to offer arguments in opposition to Thompson's motion.

Thompson, whose office prosecuted Willingham, said he is not trying to delay the court of inquiry. "I just want to make sure that if we do it, it's done right," he said.

At CNN, Matt Smith posts, "Convict in disputed execution was guilty, ex-wife says."

The ex-wife of a Texas convict executed in 2004 for the deaths of his three children reaffirmed her belief in his guilt Wednesday as his relatives sought to open a new inquiry into the case.

The family of Cameron Todd Willingham has asked a judge to posthumously clear his name, arguing that he was put to death based on "junk science." Though Willingham was executed in 2004 for killing his three daughters by setting fire to his house, subsequent investigations by outside experts have concluded that the fire that killed the girls should not have been ruled arson.

Willingham's ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, has kept a low profile throughout the debate over his execution. But she told reporters outside the Travis County courthouse in Austin that "I am here to make sure that my daughters' voices are heard."

And:

Baird told lawyers he will issue a decision on that request next week, said Gerry Goldstein, a lawyer representing Willingham's stepmother, Eugenia Willingham, and cousin Patricia Cox.

Goldstein pointed out that Kuykendall has told differing stories about whether her former husband ever admitted his guilt in the fatal fire, and criticized death-penalty supporters for "parading her on the courthouse steps while they're inside trying to stop proceedings."

"What possible harm could there be to their side to have this aired in court?" he asked.

"Thompson reacts to hearing delay, motion," by Janet Jacobs in the Corsicana Daily Sun.

"A Delay for Willingham Court of Inquiry," by Morgan Smith for the Texas Tribune.

"Texas delays hearing into whether executed man was innocent," by AFP, via Google News.

Earlier coverage begins with the preceding post. All Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Todd Willingham, the FSC, and Junk Science

"Willingham hearing imperfect but important," is the title of a Dallas Morning News editorial.  It appeared in the Saturday edition.

The questions surrounding the Cameron Todd Willingham case have become a constant drumbeat in Texas' death penalty discussion. The underlying unknown: Did Texas err when it executed Willingham?

The case of a man who was put to death for arson murder of his three daughters has become the state's most discussed, most studied and most maligned capital murder case. But despite an array of efforts to re-examine the questionable science that sent Willingham to his death, no legal determination has been made on whether he was wrongfully convicted.

That's what state District Judge Charlie Baird aims to do, starting with a hearing on Wednesday.

This is a bold move by Baird – one that opens up the Travis County judge to plenty of criticism if he proceeds clumsily. But handled with care, this posthumous hearing has the potential to provide important information about the mistakes in this case and to expose weaknesses in Texas' approach to the death penalty.

And:

This hearing, which comes six years after Willingham's execution, is an imperfect approach. But perfection became impossible when the state executed Willingham with so many questions left unanswered.

This morning's Houston Chronicle carries Rick Casey's latest column, "Focusing on what's right, not just legal."

One of the highlights of my recently completed vacation was to read from afar that in a showdown between science and politics in a Texas state body, science had won a resounding victory.

It wasn't the State Board of Education, but one cannot expect miracles.

It was the Texas Forensic Science Commission, a fledgling body that I have covered with exuberance because it is one of the most promising efforts in the nation to deal with the widely recognized problem of the faulty use of science in the criminal justice system.

The commission's job is to determine when forensic science is poorly done in Texas, and to promote doing it right.

So it was delightful when the scientists on the Forensic Science Commission recently stood up as a body to the prosecutor whom Gov. Rick Perry made their chairman a year ago.

And:

What's more, and perhaps even more importantly for the promotion of good science, the scientists accepted the argument by the Innocence Project, which brought the Willingham case to them, that they need to address whether the State Fire Marshal's Office has a responsibility to notify law enforcement officials, district attorneys, judges and the governor when it discovers that people have been (and are being) convicted on faulty science.

Hundreds of Texans sit in prison for arson, possibly based on science discredited in the 1990s.

Bradley had ignored the issue, but the scientists insist on raising it with the Fire Marshal's Office.

Three leaders of the Innocence Project of Texas co-authored an OpEd that appeared in yesterday's Chronicle, "Time to ban junk science from Texas courtrooms."  It's by Jeff Blackburn, Gary Udashen, and Cory Session.

The Cameron Todd Willingham case has raised serious questions about the Texas criminal justice system. To many, the issue is whether Texas executed an innocent man. To the Innocence Project of Texas, the questions raised by this case are much bigger. To us, the real issue raised by the Willingham case is the ongoing use of "junk science" to falsely convict the innocent.

What is junk science? There are few things more convincing to a jury than scientific evidence presented by expert witnesses called by the state in a criminal case. Sometimes, however, the so-called science used by prosecutors isn't science at all.

Many Texas defendants have been convicted when fraudulent or invented forensic techniques were presented as scientific truth at trial. Others have gone to prison as a result of genuine science being twisted into false accusations of guilt. From the Houston Crime Lab disaster to the discredited testimony of experts like Ralph Erdmann and Fred Zain, Texas leads the nation in scandal over this problem. The Cameron Todd Willingham case, in which discredited arson science was used to get a conviction, is only one of many examples of the use of this kind of evidence.

Just last year, the Innocence Project of Texas exposed the work of Keith Pikett, a Fort Bend County Sheriff's deputy who made use of "dog-scent lineups" to link suspects to evidence retrieved from crime scenes. The Innocence Project report, entitled Dog Scent Lineups: A Junk Science Injustice, called attention to the numerous wrongful accusations and convictions that resulted from this form of junk science. Even though the self-trained deputy did not have a scientific background, he was allowed time and time again to testify in criminal trials about the alleged science behind his lineup procedures. Pikett's expert testimony was all junk and no science — and it was used repeatedly by prosecutors. In an encouraging move, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently reversed a case based on Pikett's testimony. That move aside, prosecutors are still allowed to use charlatans like Pikett in Texas courtrooms.

The technique of using phony experts, unscientific evidence or just plain fraud dressed up as expert testimony is known as the use of junk science. It is being employed to get convictions in courtrooms all over the state to this day.

Fortunately, there are solutions to this problem. Innocent citizens who have been convicted in the past because of junk science need to have a fair day in court to prove that they were wrongfully convicted. Forensic labs need to be separated from law-enforcement agencies and made fully accountable to the scientific community. Trial procedures need to be improved so that innocent citizens will not be victimized by junk science in the future.

UPDATE:  The San Antonio Express-News, sister paper of the Chronicle, ran the OpEd as, "Junk science a pervasive problem in Texas," on Thursday, October 7.

Earlier Willingham coverage begins with this post; More from the IPoT, here.

All Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Delay in Willingham Case Is Unconscionable

That's the title of an editorial in today's San Antonio Express-News.  LINK

The Texas Forensic Science Commission agreed to take up the Willingham case in 2007. It is precisely the kind of case the commission was created to address — one in which professional negligence or misconduct may have led to forensic errors.

But the commission, with plenty of manipulation by Gov. Rick Perry, has gone to ridiculous lengths to prolong a finding in the Willingham case. At its September meeting, the commission once again pushed back a discussion of forensic standards applicable to the case until November — after the election.

Underlying the faulty forensics is this question: Did Texas put an innocent man to death in 2004?

Where the Forensic Science Commission has unconscionably dragged its feet in providing an answer, San Antonio attorney Gerald Goldstein has stepped in. Goldstein made a court-of-inquiry filing in an Austin district court last week on behalf of the Innocence Project seeking to clear Willingham's name.

Goldstein made the filing with State District Judge Charlie Baird, who last year cleared Timothy Cole of a sexual assault for which he received a 25-year sentence. Cole died in jail in 1999. In March, Perry issued the state's first posthumous pardon for innocence to Cole.

The difference between Cole and Willingham is that Perry was governor when Willingham was executed, he received Willingham's clemency report and he denied Willingham's request for a stay of execution that might have highlighted the dubious forensic science that put him on death row.

Those are inconvenient facts in an election year for members of the Forensic Science Commission handpicked by Perry. But justice — and the determination of whether Texas executed an innocent man — should not be held hostage to partisan politics.

This week's Austin Chronicle has, "Judge To Review Willingham Case," written by Jordan Smith.

District Judge Charlie Baird will hold a two-day hearing in October to consider evidence on whether Cameron Todd Willing­ham was actually innocent of and executed for a crime that never occurred. Willingham was executed in 2004 in connection with a fire in his home in Corsicana that claimed the lives of his three young children. State officials – including the State Fire Marshal's Office – concluded that the 1991 fire had been deliberately set by Willingham; Willing­ham maintained his innocence, including in his last words before death.

Earlier coverage begins with this post. All Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Texas Innocence Group Fights Use of `Junk Science'

That's the title of Jeff Carlton's AP report, via the Houston Chronicle.  LINK

A woman convicted of killing her uncle by dousing him with gasoline and setting him on fire asked the Texas Forensic Science Commission on Wednesday to determine whether a crime lab committed professional misconduct when it claimed to have found traces of gasoline on his clothes.

The Innocence Project of Texas, as part of its campaign against what it calls "junk science," filed the complaint on behalf of Sonia Cacy, 63. She has been free on parole since 1998 after the forensic evidence used to convict her was widely discredited.

John Bradley, the head of the science commission, said in an e-mail that "FSC policy is to avoid public discussion of pending complaints, especially those not yet reviewed or investigated." The medical examiner's office, which is in San Antonio, did not immediately respond to a message from The Associated Press.

The science commission is the same group looking into whether fire investigators were negligent in determining that arson was the cause of a 1991 fire that killed three young sisters in Corsicana. That arson finding helped convict the girls' father, Cameron Todd Willingham, of murder. He was executed in 2004.

Cacy was convicted of murder in the 1991 death of her uncle, Bill Richardson, at their Fort Stockton home. The key evidence came from the Bexar County Medical Examiner's office, which determined there was gasoline on Richardson's clothes.

That evidence was later debunked by nearly a dozen fire experts and numerous attorneys who worked on her case for free. As a result, the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole released Cacy after she had served six years of a 99-year prison sentence.

Her attorneys and many forensic experts say Richardson, a heavy smoker, likely died of a heart attack. They believe he dropped a cigarette that started a fire.

And:

Attorneys Jeff Blackburn and Gary Udashen, who are Innocence Project of Texas board members, said filing the complaint with the forensic science commission is the first step toward clearing Cacy's name.

"This is the most stark example of what junk science can do to someone," Blackburn said.

Blackburn and Udashen said junk science is most common in Texas in cases involving blood spatter patterns, arson investigations and dog scent identifications.

They unveiled a four-point plan designed to ferret out possible wrongful convictions caused by the use of such science: They are offering to assist law enforcement agencies in reviewing cases, file litigation involving such cases, bring appropriate cases to the science commission and offer a reform plan to the Texas Legislature.

Earlier coverage of Cacy is here; more on dog scent lineups, here.

The Case of Sonia Cacy

"Woman Charged With Murder Campaigns for Innocence," is the title of Brandi Grissom's report at the Texas Tribune, this morning.  Here's an extended excerpt from the beginning of this must-read:

When Sonia Cacy walked out of prison after serving six years of a 99-year sentence for murder, she told reporters that those were just her first steps toward freedom. To be truly free, she told the San Antonio Express-News in 1998, she wanted her name cleared. She wanted to be exonerated of a crime that many experts say she did not commit.

Twelve years later, Cacy is still not free despite multiple expert reports concluding that she did not douse her uncle with gasoline and light a fire that killed him and destroyed the small Fort Stockton home they shared. Now 63, she lives in Fort Worth and is on parole. “I have faith,” she says. “I held on through prison, and I’ve still got it. It’s still there.”

Today, at a news conference in Dallas, the Innocence Project of Texas will ask the Texas Forensic Science Commission to begin a process the nonprofit organization hopes will lead to Cacy’s exoneration — and, potentially, to an overhaul in the use of forensic science in criminal cases. “We’re starting on a serious long-term campaign to end the use of junk science in Texas courtrooms,” says Jeff Blackburn, the organization's chief counsel. Cacy’s case is one of several the Innocence Project plans to file with the commission and in Texas courts to challenge the use of arson investigation techniques, dog scent lineups and blood-spatter analysis that it believes have led to many wrongful convictions.

The Innocence Project’s complaint in the Cacy case comes just over a week after the commission decided to extend its investigation into the science used in another high-profile arson case: that of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was convicted of lighting the house fire that killed his three daughters and was executed in 2004. Reports issued before and after Willingham’s death suggest he did not start the blaze and that investigators used outdated forensic techniques. Just as it appeared the commission would approve a report backed by the commission's chairman, John Bradley, that cleared investigators of wrongdoing, other commissioners demanded more information. “When we saw the level of interest in Willingham’s case that was on display, we decided it would be worthwhile to take this case to them, because we think it represents a much bigger cross-section of junk science used across this state,” Blackburn says. 

“People think Cameron Todd Willingham is just about whether Texas executed an innocent man, but for us it’s a lot deeper,” he says. “We’ve got hundreds of people in prison, if not thousands, for crimes they didn’t commit. They need to come out.”

Related coverage is in the forensics and Texas Forensic Science Commission indexes.  Complete coverage of the Willingham case is in the Todd Willingham index.  Dave Mann of the Texas Oberser has also written about problems with Texas arson cases, beginning with this post.

Dallas Morning News on the FSC

Today's Dallas Morning News carries the editorial, "Forensic panel should push in defining 'duty',"

There appears to be little or no dissent among members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission that soon-to-be outdated science was used to build an arson-murder case that led to Cameron Todd Willingham's execution.

The key decision for the commission now is how to formalize that conclusion. It should send the strongest message possible to forensic investigators about their duty to justice.

The commission wisely decided last week to summon experts for face-to-face questioning on the state of arson science in 1992, when Willingham was convicted of setting the Corsicana fire that killed his three children.

Members are interested not only in the standards at the time but also whether emerging science had escaped the notice of Willingham investigators. It's an obvious question: Were they diligent in staying abreast of their craft?

To their credit, a majority of commissioners want to push further: They want to sort out a forensic investigator's responsibility when evolving science casts doubt on conclusions that had been reached under outmoded standards.

And:

The commission was created in 2005 to review charges of professional negligence, and, where appropriate, prescribe "corrective action" for the agency in question. Defining a forensic professional's "duty to correct" appears central to the spirit of the law.

The Willingham report will be the commission's first. The tone should reflect the high stakes involved in the nation's leading death penalty state.

Earlier coverage begins with this post from yesterday. All Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.

Forensics Panel Can Shed More Light in Willingham Case

That's the title of an editorial in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  LINK

The interest of good science prevailed at the Texas Forensic Science Commission on Friday. That's good for the credibility of the state's criminal justice system.

A majority of the commission's members said they want more information before drawing conclusions about the professional competence of fire investigators whose work led to the capital murder conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham of Corsicana.

Now, commissioners plan to listen to live testimony in November from Texas Fire Marshal officials and specialists in arson investigation.

And:

One witness expected at the November meeting is Baltimore fire specialist Craig Beyler, whom the commission had hired to review investigation methods used to build criminal arson cases against Willingham and Ernest Ray Willis, the defendant in an earlier unrelated case that ultimately resulted in an exoneration.

Last fall, after Beyler's report called into question the procedures and conclusions in Willingham's case, Gov. Rick Perry shook up the commission, replacing its chairman and several members whose terms had expired.

But the governor's action, which threw a political taint over the nine-member panel and delayed its work on the Willingham review, hasn't prevented the thorough examination that's needed.

Texans are entitled to know whether inadequate methods undermined the accuracy of this conviction, as well as others, and whether anyone should be answerable. Justice isn't done merely by getting criminal cases tried and punishment meted out. It's done by holding the right perpetrators accountable, through credible evidence and reliable procedures.

Earlier coverage begins with this post. 

All Willingham 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 has a Todd Willingham resource page which provides a concise overview of the Willingham case with links to all relevant documents.