Time to Abolish the Fire Marshall's Office
The State Fire Marshall system has always been a mystery to me. There is an inherent conflict in having arson determinations made by the body that regulates insurance companies; companies that have an interest in seeing fires declared as arson, so they can avoid paying claims.
There's also the problem with the competence of fire investigators in general. Over the last several years more people have recognized the role of science in arson investigations. The result has been that many of the factors relied by arson investigators are not indicators of arson, but instead, things that exist in almost all fires. The problem is at the forefront of public opinion due in large part by efforts to focus on the case of Cameron Todd Willingham - who almost everyone agrees was convicted on findings that have now been discredited. I should now say everyone but the State Fire Marshall.
The Texas Forensic Science Commission is meeting today to decide what to do about the Willingham case. Following their last meeting they solicited comments, and a number of experts provided their opinions. The main question was what the state of knowledge was back in 1992 back when the fire was originally investigated. That was around the time NFPA 921 was published - which everyone agrees was slow to be adopted by the fire investigators. As a leading expert - John DeHaan notes - there was always a conflict between the scientists and those in the field. It took awhile, but by now most agencies view NFPA 921 as the guide for fire investigations.
There was a reason why the Forensic Science Commission was focusing on what was known at the time; they were trying to give the fire marshall a pass. Even the commission chairman - John Bradley - has conceded that the investigation was flawed. There is a reason for that - every expert who has looked at the case agrees the investigation was bad. Apparently the fire marshall - Paul Maldonado - didn't get the hint. He published a response standing by the original findings. According to Mr. Maldonado, the principals and techniques they used in the original investigation "are linked to NFPA standards subsequently put in place." In other words, he admits they should be judged by the standards that are now accepted.
It gets worse. He actually discusses the evidence, and how the original findings were consistent with NFPA 921. The argument basically tracks that used at trial, which is what has now been discredited. If Mr. Maldonado believes the original investigation and findings were conducted in accordance with current standards he should be replaced immediately. Even someone with no fire science background can see how NFPA 921 contradicts the original findings. Apparently, Mr. Madonado concedes that investigations are being conducted just as they were in 1992.
I find it difficult to believe Mr. Maldonado seriously believes what he claims. Instead, I think it is a blatant attempt to save face. If so, it shows the inherent problems with the fire marshall's office. Any "scientific" entity should be concerned with the truth and not saving face. It's time to turn arson investigations over to those who are willing to apply the science, and apply the scientific method. That's not going to happen until we change the system.
Deputy State Fire Marshal's comments reported in the Chicago Tribune Dec 9, 2004:
Even Edward Cheever, one of the state deputy fire marshals who had
assisted in the original investigation of the 1991 fire, acknowledged that
Hurst's criticism was valid.
"At the time of the Corsicana fire, we were still testifying to things that
aren't accurate today," he said. "They were true then, but they aren't now.
"Hurst," he added, "was pretty much right on. ... We know now not to make
those same assumptions."
Mr. Cheever, it would seem, does not subscribe to Mr. Maldonado's "standing by" the SFMO conclusions.