Friday, December 31, 2021

Why Gov. Perry shook up the Texas Forensic Science Commission

Why Gov. Perry shook up the Texas Forensic Science Commission
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, pro death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

originally published 10/16/2009 (3)

Gov. Perry’s replacement of the Forensics Science Commission (FSC) members hurt him politically. He knew it would, yet he did it anyway. Why?  

The ridiculous speculation, that such was part of a cover-up to hide the evidence of an innocent executed, Cameron Todd Willingham, was humorous.  

Perry’s actions brought more light, more suspicion and more outrage to a case that was, already, fully exposed.  

Politicians don’t, usually, make decisions like this, intentionally inflicting harm to themselves, particularly in such a closely contested battle, as Perry has with Sen. Hutchison. 

Yes, politicians and their advisors can be unbelievably stupid, but bear with me.  

Perry’s silly explanation that “it was standard policy” to replace those members, rightly, fell on disbelieving ears. Yes, their terms had expired, 9/1, but the timing of the removals, 9/31, two days before the formal FSC hearing on this case, was explosive, just as Perry knew it would be.  

Perry’s response to gubernatorial political opponent Sen. Hutchison’s criticism was telling “She doesn’t have all the facts.” 

======
Added later. All of this, likely, was known by Perry, at the time of the Commission shake up:

1) By statute, the Commission was, illegally, investigating both Willingham and Willis cases, as was confirmed by the Attorney General, from the very clear statute.
2) The Beyler Report was, justly destroyed. Beyler didn't even know that 3 year old Amber was in bed, with Todd Willingham, during the fire. Grossly irresponsible forensic report.
3) There were leaks coming out of the TFSC.

The Commission shake up was, clearly, justified and, in addition, as, detailed later, by dismissed TFSC Chair Sam Bassett's interviews.
======

Perry publicly admitted that the reasons for replacing the members was not business as usual. He contradicted himself. Few noticed.  

First, the charge, true or false, that Perry is covering up his malfeasance in an innocent person being executed, is not a charge that Perry can avoid and just hope it goes away. Citizens are outraged by political cover ups, even more so if it concerns an innocent citizen being killed.  

For Perry’s political enemies, as well as the media and anti-death penalty folks (very often the same), there is blood in the water and they will not allow this to fade away – nor should they.  

Secondly, in the midst of a battle for Perry’s political life, the accusations are too damning and important not to be resolved, quickly and thoroughly.  

======
A Complete Compilation:
Cameron Todd Willingham: Media Meltdown & the Death Penalty
When Media & Anti-death Penalty Advocates Are the Same 
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/06/cameron-todd-willingham-media-meltdown.html
and
A Repudiation of Journalism, by Journalists?
The Society of Professional Journalists & The Sigma Delta Chi Award: 
======

Thirdly, let’s presume the obvious, most politicians act with self -interest, with reelection as a primary goal. Enter Perry. 

He knew that his replacement of the 4 Commission members would be a huge pile of manure in his campaign and would remain a major negative throughout the campaign.  Therefore, he had to have known that there was a positive that was going to arise out of this short term disaster, a flower growing out of that manure, if you will. 

He wouldn’t have replaced those 4 members, unless there was something to serve his self interest, that would, better sooner than later, BENEFIT his campaign.  

NOTE: As one reporter speculated: “Dudley, you may be giving Perry’s advisors too much high IQ credit.” Point taken.  

Here is my speculation as to why all of this happened. (Later: All of which turned out to be true)

(1) The brief and incomplete Corsicana Fire Department report (CFDR) to the Beyler report (BR), certainly, offers a clue. It blasted the BR on some obvious and important points, making over a hundred comments and corrections to Beyler’s 19 page review of the Willingham case.  It made a decent case that Beyler’s report is both inaccurate and biased (A)  

The CFDR noted that it was very limited by time and other constraints. With the hearing delay, those time constraints have now been lifted. Likely, that will mean more criticism of the BR and a more thorough review of all the case evidence for the CFDR.  Even a curious layman could some real problems in the BR.  Any media folks interested in investigative journalism would have seen it as well. 

Apparently, none did. Hint. Read the incomplete CFDR, released Oct.3rd.


2) The evidence is that the pending Texas Fire Marshall’s (TFM) report, which is another formal part of this review process, is, also, going to be critical of the BR.  We know that because the TFM’s office has stated that they are standing by their deceased expert’s, Vasquez’s, report (A1).  

The BR laid waste to Vasquez’s report. Therefore, we already know what the TFM Report is going to do – lay waste to the BR.  

I’ve seen none in the media mention this obvious fact.  

3) Based upon the probability that Perry or his advisors either read or knew what was in either or both of the TFM and CFD reports, as well making their own critical review of Beyler’s report, prior to 9/31, it becomes understandable why Perry replaced the Commission members.  

Perry’s, likely, assessment was, “wait a minute, the Beyler report is so biased, so filled with inaccuracies, why didn’t the committee members request a more balanced report, prior to the hearing? They would be fools, idiots or worse not to.”  

In addition, I don’t think anyone can underestimate the effects of political paranoia, which run deep in such campaigns.  

4) It appears likely that there may be factors regarding the TFSC that we are, currently, unaware of as, specifically, suggested by Perry’s response to Hutchison. “She doesn’t have all the facts.”  If she doesn’t have them, we don’t either.  

In such a circumstance, any Governor, concerned with a fair evaluation of the government’s business, might feel the need to make changes.  Yes, I might be wrong, but it certainly makes more sense than to cover up what can’t be covered up, to sabotage your own campaign when you cannot afford to.  

Depending upon their schedules, can’t the 4 new commission members get up to speed within 4-8 weeks, meaning a new FSC hearing can, responsibly, be held in December or January?    

======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/
======

(A) 1. EXCLUSIVE: City report on arson probe: State panel asks for city response in Willingham case  http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/news/local_story_276222736.html  

(A)2.  No Doubts  http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/local_story_250180658.html  

3) http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/16/why-gov-perry-shook-up-the-texas-forensic-science-commission/ 

======

Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in a public policy debate
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts, herein)

Posted by at

Innocence Project Report: Cameron Todd Willingham

Innocence Project Report: Cameron Todd Willingham  
Dudley Sharp, contact info below    

Originally published 10/26/2009 (1).   

In the Willingham case, the Innocent Project Report (IPR), in their executive Summary, found the fire was not an incendiary fire (2).    

The IPR provided no evidence of that and no other source for the fire was established. 

Discounting their statement goes to their lack of proof/evidence for the claim, for which they have none.   

It may go to a professional standard that says, if you can’t prove it’s arson, then it is accidental.  Not true, of course, at least in this case.  

Therefore, the IP Executive Summary conclusion is highly misleading or a lie, based only upon this layman’s understanding of “the fire was not an incendiary fire.”  

Not surprising. Barry Scheck, the head of the Innocence Project, states: “There can no longer be any doubt that an innocent person (Willingham) has been executed.” (3)

How, blatantly, dishonest can Scheck get? All Scheck is doing is removing any remaining doubt as to the IP’s bias and hurting an already damaged image of forensic scientists as anything but objective parties.  Barry, why do that? 

Likely, it is only based on a partisan anti-death penalty bias. No excuse.  Has the media gone after Sheck on this? Of course not. This goes to the media’s unchallenged bias against the death penalty in this, as in many death penalty cases.  Same ole story.   

The IPR, a short review:  

NOTE: I have significant problems with the way the IPR was written. The IPR often travels down one road, only, seemingly, that of the defense in a criminal case. What the IPR fails to do, is tell the reader the full story.  

I quote sections of the IPR, below, and after those are my reply, which is “WTIFTM” or “what the IPR forgot to mention”.  

IPR: “This process can create patterns on those surfaces of the type described by Mr. Vasquez as “puddle configurations” and “pour patterns.” More importantly, these patterns can be created in compartment fires where no flammable liquids were introduced.” (p 9, lines 8-11)  

WTIFTM: It also can be created by flammable liquids in an arson fire. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

IPR: “Based on this work, significant differences in the condition and appearance of the fire compartments and contents were observed between experiments with the same method of ignition. Simply stated, the patterns produced could not be used to discriminate an arson fire from an accidental fire.” (p9, lines 28-31)  

WTIFTM: Precisely, could have been arson, could have been accidental. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

======
Cameron Todd Willingham: Guilty By Forensic Science, 2019
======

IPR: “Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Mr. Vasquez’s repeated assertions that there was liquid accelerant used in this fire are correct, the distance between the three alleged areas of origin would not constitute an effective separation for a flammable liquid because the vapor would simply flash across the intervening space between the alleged pools of liquid fuel. In essence, there could only have been one origin given Mr. Vasquez’s determination.” (p 12, lines 3-8)  

WTIFTM: Yes, assuming that Vasquez was correct, the fire, most certainly, could have been arson. There could have been three origination points for the arson. Yet, the effects of a flashover may have erased any evidence of separation, possibly making an arson fire indistinguishable from an accidental fire and producing evidence of a single origin, when there may have been multiple origins. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

IPR: “Each and every one of the “indicators” listed by Mr. Vasquez means absolutely nothing, and, in fact, is expected in the context of a fire that has achieved full room involvement, as this fire clearly did. Low burning, charred flooring and burning underneath items of furniture are common characteristics of a fully involved fire.34 They mean nothing with respect to the origin and cause of the fire, and they absolutely do not support any hypothesis that the fire had been accelerated by liquid fuels.” (p17 lines 19-24)  

WTIFTM: In fact, it supports neither hypothesis, that it was arson or accidental. It could have been either. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

======
Complete Rebuttal of: (Updated through 2020)
"Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?", David Grann, The New Yorker, 9/7/2009: Cameron Todd Willingham: Media meltdown & the death penalty

IPR: “Further, as stated earlier, it is impossible for flammable liquid to flow underneath a threshold and burn, because there is a lack of available oxygen under the threshold to support flaming combustion. (p 17, lines 41-43)  

WTIFTM: To state the obvious, it depends upon how secure the threshold is. If loose, worn, old and cracked, there may be sufficient oxygen to support flaming combustion.  

IPR: “All of the (IPR) authors have seen reports like this one. If the Fire Marshal’s determination is wrong, his identification of the “lies” told by the defendant is equally wrong.”  p18, lines 13, 14)  

WTIFTM: In this case, that may not be true. 

It is important to note the IPR said ” ‘If’ the fire marshal’s determination is wrong."

Because the IPR cannot conclude arson or accidental, it is very possible that the Fire Marshall was correct in his conclusion of arson, even though his methodology and foundation for determining that may have been in error. 

He may have, allegedly, bumbled his way into the correct conclusion. If arson, Willingham’s lies may have been properly identified, bumbles and all. While the IPR may have made a good case for flawed forensics, they cannot dispute that the fire may have been arson. Therefore, the conclusion of the Fire Marshall may be correct, even though the method of arriving at it, possibly, was not. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

NOTE: we have, still, not seen the updated Corsicana Fire Department Report, if there will be one. I suspect there will be. Nor have we seen the report by the Texas Fire Marshal’s office, although we do have a statement from them that they will be standing by their expert, Vasquez’, report.  As I have, repeatedly stated, since August, do not make hasty decisions in this case. It has a long way to go.   

1) http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/26/innocence-project-report-cameron-todd-willingham/   

2)http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/ArsonReviewReport.pdf

3) http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/2149.php  


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)