Posted on April 14, 2010 by Walter Reaves

Texas Forensic Commission - Good idea gone terribly wrong

I can’t say that I’m surprised anymore by anything the Texas forensic commission does. To be fair, to be fair, it’s not actually the commission, but it’s chairman - John Bradley. So far the condition has not had a chance to do anything; not only they have not done anything, they can’t even talk about what they are not doing because Mr. Bradley has instructed them to not talk to anyone about commission business.

The latest news from the Texas Forensic Commission that makes you scratch your head is the decision to deal with the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Those who have been following this know that it was the commission’s decision to hear evidence from Dr. Craig Beyler that caused the jet governor to jump in at the last minute and remove several of the commission members. Now Mr. Bradley has apparently decided that they will take up the case, and appointed a committee to do that. It should be no surprise that he is a member of the three-person committee. It also should be no surprise that they are going to meet behind closed doors next week. What is a surprise is that the confirmation of the committee appointments is on the agenda for the day after the scheduled meeting. In other words, they are going to meet before the full commission  has even approved the committee appointments.

Even those who harbored doubts initially now recognize that the committee’s actions are entirely political. Few doubted the governors last minute decision to replace committee members was meant to postpone consideration of the Willingham case. Some had doubts that there was any agreement with the chairman to delay the case, or scuttle it entirely. Those doubts have since been removed also. Almost everyone now agrees that nothing is going to happen until after the election.

What surprises me is that despite the consensus of opinion regarding the commission, Mr. Bradley is either oblivious to it, or doesn’t care. I sincerely doubt he is oblivious, since every major newspaper in the state has been critical of his actions. Not only has he done nothing to try and dispel the concerns, he appears to have gone out of his way to create new ones. You can only assume that both he and the governor shares the opinion that they simply do not care what everyone thinks.

I’ve said before that the commission has lost any credibility it may have had. As such, I wonder why we are even wasting time looking at what they are doing. No matter what they do it’s going to be suspect, and will not achieve the goals the legislature had in mind when they created the commission. Those goals were admirable ones, but like many good ideas it has gone terribly to astray. The best thing the legislature can do now is scuttle the current commission and go back to the drawing board

I doubt they will do that. Instead we will all watch what happens next week with the same morbid curiosity that draws people to slow down when they pass an accident. I admit, I’ll probably be one of those.

Tags: , ,
Posted on March 16, 2010 by Walter Reaves

Lessons not learned

There's no shortage of criticism over the impending execution of Hank Skinner in Texas. The Medellin Innocence project has been pushing for new DNA testing. A number of people have come down on Skinner's side. For more information you can go to Stand Down Texas for links to resources and coverage.

The controversy exists mainly because Skinner's previous lawyers didn't request testing of all the evidence. The State did allow testing of some evidence in 2000, apparently believing that it would confirm Skinner's guilt - it didn't.  Instead the test results raised questions about Skinner's guilt.

What bothers me about me most about this case is the complete failure to learn from history. I'm certainly not the first to point out the similarities with Cameron Todd Willingham's case. Officials and courts refused to acknowledge questions of innocence, and the debate still continues. Does the state seriously believe that the thing is not going to happen with Skinner? The case will provide even more evidence to those who believe Texas is more interested in vengeance and  procedure than justice.

Governor Perry has a chance to step in and prove everyone wrong in this case; he can grant a stay, and allow the courts another opportunity to look at - and test - the evidence. If he doesn't, it is damning evidence of his true character.

Any person with a conscience would want to avoid at all costs what happened with Willingham. I realize he has stated how convinced he is of Willingham's guilt, but no rational person can seriously believe that. Even if you believe he is guilty, no one could seriously argue that he would be convicted today without scientific evidence that the fire was intentionally set. I can't imagine anyone living with that on their conscience; if it doesn't bother you, you have to wonder if there is a conscience.

I've talked before about my religious beliefs and convictions - specifically that we are all going to answer for the decisions we make on earth. I truly believe what we do now has eternal consequences. The sad thing is that most of those who support Governor Perry - and probably the governor himself - claim to believe the same thing. I don't think you get a  pass just because you are in politics - or "following the law" and accepting the judgment of the courts. In fact, I think the power you wield makes those arguments even less successful. They sound good, but the fact is he does have the power to question those decisions.

It's clear that the decision he made on Willingham hasn't effected his political future. If anything its enhance it; he was able to survive a primary without a runoff, and is now being talked about for national office. for his sake, I hope he has thought about his future beyond politics. I don't know how things work, and if you can redeem yourself for bad decisions. personally, I believe you can. The governor has a chance to prove he learned something from Willingham - let's hope he takes advantage of it.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on January 31, 2010 by Walter Reaves

Any questions now about the Forensic Commission?

On Friday the Texas Forensic Commission held their first meeting under new chairman John Bradley. The fact that it was held in Harlingen should have told you everything you need to know. He wanted to make it as inconvenient as possible for people to attend - and it didn't take long to find out why.

Thanks to the Innocence Project the meeting was streamed live over the internet. For those able to stay awake they were able to witness a primer on how to abuse power and hijack a government commission for your own purposes. As usual, we could rely on Scott Benson and Grits for Breakfast for coverage. He has posts here and here.

As you remember, last year the commission was set to hear from Dr. Craig Beyler who had been hired to produce a report on the Cameron Todd Willingham Case. The day before the hearing Gov. Perry removed the chairman, and put Mr. Bradley in his place. His first action as the new chairman was to cancel the hearing. He then started talking about developing rules for procedures for conducting business - in other words, he didn't want to do anything substantive. So after several months we finally have the first meeting under chairman Bradley. He had rules all right - of course he didn't share those with the other members of the commission; no doubt because he didn't want them to have a chance to read them.

Before the meeting there had been a discussion over whether the commission even has the authority to enact rules. Most thought they didn't. The Innocence Project hired a prominent New York Law firm to furnish to an opinion. Their conclusion was that they had no such authority.

As it turns out, Mr. Bradley knew this all along. After forcing the new rules down everyone's throat - and demanding a vote even though they were looking at them for the first time - he acknowledged they weren't really binding. As Capt. Jack Sparrow said about the Code, they are really "more like like guidelines". That's not the only thing he backtracked on. He assured the members that the new rules wouldn't apply to pending cases. After they voted to approve them, he said they would apply to the pending cases. Of course I guess it really doesn't mean much since they are really only guidelines.

Mr. Bradley definitely showed his prosecutorial bent, and pulled out all the tricks. Prosecutors are used to getting want they want. They also control the information, and are prone to demanding decisions without allowing adequate time to consider the options. He certainly got what he wanted here - or did he really get what Gov. Perry wanted?

I have serious doubts that Mr. Bradley came up with those rules on his own. After all, he does have a full time job. The commission so far doesn't have a general counsel, and only has one staff person. So where did they come from? My guess is they came straight from the governor's office - although that is something we will probably never know.

So where does that leave the commission? The idea behind the commission was to create a forum to address problems with forensic science. It started with Williingham - which pointed out the problems with arson investigations. There have also been problems with labs, and individuals. The commission should be a forum to address those issues; to decide if there was a problem, and  how to fix it. That has to include what to do in those cases where mistakes have been made.

The Courts are not designed to referee disputes over forensic science. A commission - made up of scientists and lawyers - and without the political pressure judges face, is an ideal forum. A commission can hear from all sides, and consider more than one individual case. Unfortunately, it doesn't look the commission is going to do anything here other than waste a lot of taxpayer money.

I'm not sure what Mr. Bradley has in mind - once they actually get down to business. I have serious doubts that he wants to correct mistakes that have already been made. He has already indicated a desire to be prospective. What's more troubling is the rules he wanted to impose focused only on intentional acts. Most of the problems in forensic science aren't intentional. They are made because people don't know any better. If you address only intentional mistakes you might as well not even look at cases like Willingham - the investigators there were arguably applying the tactics that had been used for years.  We now know it was wrong.

The legislature is concerned about this, and there have already been two hearings held. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know It's not the current commission. We would be better off scrapping the whole thing and start over - and save a lot of money in the meantime.

Tags: , , , ,