Time to Review all the arson cases
The Texas Forensic Commission met last week, and as usual they provided a lot to write about. As usual, Dave Mann and the Texas Observer have by the far most complete coverage on the meeting.
Unlike prior meetings, there is more to talk about than what a complete lackey for the governor John Bradley is. Don't worry, He's still focused on making the governor look good - i.e. prove Cameron Todd Willingham was really guilty. He took the lead in grilling and ridiculing anyone who would suggest otherwise. But the real shocker came from the State Fire Marshall's office.
For some inexplicable reason they chose to send a lawyer - Ed Salazar. He proceeded to try and explain how the original investigators got it right. According to Mr. Salazar, the only thing they should have done differently was write a more detailed report. This was after the morning had been spent tearing apart every part of the original investigator by two of the leading fire scientists in the country - John DeHaan and Craig Beyler. Everyone except Bradley received the testimony with a heavy dose of incredulity. He stood firm though, and was followed by an investigator with the Houston Fire Department who had the major "Duh" statement of the day - there's some conflict between scientists and fire investigators.
To show how ridiculous their position was, here is how they explained their continued reliance on pour patterns. They recognized that "fall down" debris could create the same impression. However, the first thing they did was sweep away everything to see if there any patterns - without documenting anything. So there is no way to tell if he debris could have created the pattern. I had thought that everyone - even non-scientist fire investigators - recognized that "pour patterns" couldn't tell you anything. Guess I was wrong.
Commission member Sarah Karrigan took the lead in asking whether there is any obligation to go back and review old cases. Mr. Salazar never answered the question, which means a big no. Of course, why would they need to go back and review old cases when everything seems to be just fine.
Unfortunately, this is not a knew situation. Despite the constant stream of exonerrations most of those in law enforcement refuse to recognize their is a problem. They may accept that someone else could get it wrong, but not them. When someone recognizes there might be problems - a Craig Watkins for example - look at what happens. Even if Dallas had problems no one else do you really think that if other DA's took that same approach he results would not be the same? Yet it is easy to go in blissful ignorance; as long as no one looks there aren't any problems.
It's pretty obvious that the Fire Marshall's obvious didn't know what they were doing then, and still don't. That should be major concern to everyone; if the leading agency in the State can't be trusted to get the right result, then how can we have confidence in any of the prior arson convictions. I think the obvious answer is no. There's no telling how many people are in jail for accidental fires; and we are never going to know until an independent review is done. One that the Fire Marshall is not involved in. I've said before that we need to do away with the State Fire Marshall's office - that should even be more obvious now.
As long as no one looks, everything is just fine. It's time to start looking.
