This 10 minute video, with reflection questions, provides an explanation of the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the death penalty, In addition to the principles, it discusses their application in the United States today. It includes comments by Bill Pelke, president of the Journey of Hope … From Violence to Healing. Bill and members of the JOH will be attending the 11th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty in Austin on October 30 at the Texas Capitol. Journey of Hope will be conducting a speaking tour in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin in the two weeks leading up to the annual march in Austin.

9:04 PM on September 15, 2010
John Lentini posted the following as a comment to an editorial in the Dallas Morning News:

I was the Chairman of the Arson Review Committee, affiliated with the Innocence Project that got the Commission interested in these two cases. Until very recently, I understood that the question before the Commission concerned the responsibility of a state agency after it learns that it has used flawed science to obtain a conviction. That apparently has changed.

I have recently been provided with the August 20, 2010 letter from Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado on the Willingham case, in which he states that the Texas State Fire Marshal’s office “stands behind the original investigator’s report and conclusions.” Although it is understandable that a state agency would resist admitting to an unspeakable error, I feel compelled to reply to some of the information provided in that letter, which seems to be designed to mislead the Commission and the public about the quality of work done by the Texas State Fire Marshal’s Office in the Willingham case.

(I note that Mr. Maldonado’s letter does not deal with the Willis case, but because the evidence in the two cases was nearly identical, one would presume that it is the Fire Marshal’s office position that Ernest Willis was, in fact, guilty, and should have been executed as well. It would be interesting to hear Mr. Maldonado’s position on that subject.)

With respect to the specific answers provided, what Mr. Maldonado seems to have done is to look very selectively at the report, and then took an equally selective approach to the guidance in NFPA 921.

I note that nowhere in his correspondence to the Fire Marshal refer to actual trial testimony, which presumably contains some of the “conclusions” by which the Fire Marshal’s office is standing. In this letter, I will first discuss the parsing of the Guide and the parsing of the report, and then I will discuss some of the more outrageous sworn testimony by Deputy Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez.

There is much discussion of V-patterns and low burning, and some quotations from NFPA 921, but the letter leaves off the most important guidance from NFPA 921 about interpretation. One may cite “observations” all day long, but it is the forensic scientist’s interpretation of those observations that sways a jury. I note that the Fire Marshal attached copies of two editions of NAPA 921, and would urge the scientists on the Commission to read the entire sections cited, rather than the isolated sentences.

Here is the important guidance on interpretation of low burns and irregular patterns:

4.17.7.2 Irregular Patterns.
Irregular, curved, or “pool-shaped” patterns on floors and floor coverings should not be identified as resulting from ignitable liquids on the basis of observation of the shape alone. In cases of full room involvement, patterns similar in appearance to ignitable liquid burn pattern scan be produced when no ignitable liquid is present.

The lines of demarcation between the damaged and undamaged areas of irregular patterns range from sharp edges to smooth gradations depending on the properties of the material and the intensity of heat exposure. Denser materials like oak flooring will generally show sharper lines of demarcation than thermoplastic (e.g., nylon) carpet. The absence of a carpet pad often leads to sharper lines.

These patterns are common in situations of postflashover conditions, long extinguishing times, or building collapse. These patterns may result from the effects of hot gases, flaming and smoldering debris, melted plastics, or ignitable liquids. If the presence of ignitable liquids is suspected, supporting evidence such as the use of a combustible gas indicator, chemical analysis of debris for residues, or the presence of liquid containers should be sought. It should be noted that many plastic materials release hydrocarbon fumes when they pyrolyze or burn. These fumes may have an odor similar to that of petroleum products and can be detected by combustible gas indicators when no ignitable liquid accelerant has been used. A “positive” reading should prompt further investigation and the collection of samples for more detailed chemical analysis. It should be noted that pyrolysis products, including hydrocarbons, can be detected in gas chromatographic analysis of fire debris in the absence of the use of accelerants.

It can be helpful for the laboratory, when analyzing carpet debris, to burn a portion of the comparison sample and run a gas chromatographic analysis on both. By comparing the results of the burned and unburned comparison samples with those from the fire debris sample, it may be possible to determine whether or not hydrocarbon residues in the debris sample were products of pyrolysis or residue of an accelerant. In any situation where the presence of ignitable liquids is suggested, the effects of flashover, airflow, hot gases, melted plastic, and building collapse should be considered. (Emphasis added)

Nowhere in the record is there any indication that Mr. Vasquez gave even the slightest consideration to the possibility that the full room involvement that occurred in this case may have been responsible for the alleged “pour patterns.”

Mr. Maldonado’s most obvious attempt to mislead the Commission and the public occurs at paragraph number seven, where the following quotation occurs. “The investigation report stated: The pieces of broken glass on the ledge of the north windows to the Northeast bedroom just closed a craze (spiderwebbing) condition.” The letter that goes on to cite a section of NFPA 921 that indicates there is no published research to confirm that crazing indicates rapid heating. I was the author of the published research referred to in NFPA 921 that showed that crazing was always a result of rapid cooling, and could not be induced by rapid heating.

The Fire Marshal’s letter somehow manages to omit the second sentence in the paragraph from Fire Marshal Vasquez’s his report on page 4, which states, “This condition is an indication that the fire burned fast and hot.” One can only conclude that the Fire Marshal was intending to deceive the Commission by not revealing this incorrect interpretation written in the report. One hopes that Texas State Fire Marshals do not still believe that crazing is a sign of rapid heating.

Presumably, Mr. Maldonado also stands by the statements of conclusions reached by Mr. Vasquez when he testified:

• That auto-ventilation is an indicator of incendiary activity;
• That wood fires do not exceed 800 degrees F;
• That the condition of the bedsprings was meaningful;
• That accelerated fires burn at a higher temperature than fires fueled with ordinary combustibles.

If the Texas State Fire Marshal’s Office indeed “stands by” these erroneous conclusions, then there definitely will be (and have been) many more wrongful convictions for arson in Texas.

Rather than responding to a list of questions, I would have preferred that Mr. Maldonado respond to the original Innocence Project complaint, something that I thought was supposed to happen while Dr. Beyler was conducting his review. I hope that at some point, Mr. Maldonado is required to defend the positions taken by Mr. Vasquez while testifying, which he has so far not addressed.

I hope that there is some follow up to Mr. Maldonado’s letter. As it stands now, this appears to be just one more attempt to hide the truth.

Sincerely,

John J. Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Chairman, Arson Review Committee

Texas Monthly has a long article in this month’s edition and a 19 minute video on their website about the case of Anthony Graves. You can click here to read the article, and you can watch the video by clicking here and going to the TM website. Watch Graves’ reaction when he is told in the police station that he is being charged with capital murder; he can’t believe it. Graves’ conviction has been overturned, but he is facing a retrial in 2011.

From TM:

“Since August 23, 1992, Anthony Graves has been behind bars for the gruesome murder of a family in Somerville. There was no clear motive, no physical evidence connecting him to the crime, and the only witness against him recanted, declaring again and again before his death, in 2000, that Graves didn’t do it. If he didn’t, the truth will come out. Won’t it?”

The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board says:

For anyone with an interest in prosecutorial misconduct and capital punishment, the October issue of Texas Monthly contains required reading – a chilling account alleging deceit and abuse in pursuit of a murder conviction. The article, available today, should make even ardent supporters of the death penalty shudder to consider how an egregiously flimsy and unproven case nearly ended the life of Anthony Graves before a federal appeals court intervened and ended his 18-year residence on death row.

 Jeff Blackburn of the Innocence Project of Texas has this to say about the Anthony Graves case on the Grits for Breakfast blog:

The Texas Monthly Article and What It Tells Us About Our State

Ms. Colloff has written a truly excellent article that will tell you just about everything you need to know about Anthony Graves and his case. Readers of Grits should take a look at this piece. It’s well worth the price of the magazine.

I’m not going to discuss the facts of Anthony’s case much here- I want you to read the whole article. I will say that I was privileged to be part of a team of IPOT lawyers that represented Mr. Graves pro bono and that Ms. Colloff’s report is even-handed and accurate.

Anthony Graves was a nice guy who grew up in Brenham. He was well-liked and responsible. In 1992, an entire family was stabbed and bludgeoned to death in Somerville, a small town not far from Brenham. The trailer they lived in was torched. A man named Robert Carter was apprehended a few days later. The evidence against Carter was strong: he had a motive to kill the victims since they were costing him child-support money, he had gasoline burns all over himself, and he had been busy destroying evidence in the days after the murder. The problem was that by the time he got arrested the police and prosecutors had already decided that there had to be others involved in the crime. This “theory”, which was at best a hunch and had been arrived at without any forensic investigation, became their case. Like many prosecutors, police, and presidents in our history they decided to fix the facts to fit their theory- the same sort of behavior that we see over and over again in wrongful conviction cases. This meant that they had to get Carter to say that others were involved- if he didn’t, they would have had to admit their “theory” was untrue and lose face with the locals. After hours of questioning, Carter finally gave them the name of Anthony Graves.

Texas Rangers arrested Mr. Graves shortly thereafter and put him in jail for capital murder, where he has been ever since. The case against him was based on the word of Carter and virtually nothing else- read Ms. Colloff’s article and you will see what this “case” looked like.

That was fine for the State of Texas- it has certainly killed people with less evidence than that. The problem was that Carter began recanting his story and told prosecutors that he would tell the jury in Mr. Graves’s trial that Mr. Graves was innocent. That was the sort of thing that might ruin a perfectly good execution, so the state responded by sweating Carter the night before trial and threatening to make him testify against his wife. After several hours of this kind of “trial preparation”, Carter agreed to tell the State’s version of what happened. He did so the next day. Prosecutors covered up what had happened with the recantations and threats- evidence vital to the defense- and got their conviction and death penalty. Mr. Graves went off to death row.

In the months that followed, Carter told anyone who would listen- which was just about nobody-that he had lied about Mr. Graves to tell the prosecutors what they wanted to hear. Carter was eventually executed. Minutes before he died, he told the world again that Mr. Graves was innocent. His last words: “It was me and me alone. Anthony Graves had nothing to do with it. I lied on him in court.”

Years later, as a result of the truly heroic unpaid efforts of a lawyer and St. Thomas professor named Nicole Casarez (disclaimer here: Nicole is a very close friend of mine and a co-founder of IPOT) and despite the aggressive efforts of prosecutors, all of this came out. Mr. Graves narrowly avoided being executed because the federal courts intervened.

Ms. Colloff’s article describes the extraordinary ins-and-outs of a legal process that involved many fine lawyers working for years on the case. These lawyers- Pat McCann, Roy Greenwood, Jay Burnett, Ms. Casarez and others- barely saved their client’s life. They were ablocked and challenged by prosecutors at every stage of the proceedings.

Ms. Colloff also describes how little any of the legal wrangling has meant to Mr. Graves in practical terms. Eighteen years later, he is still in jail despite his new trial. New pro bono lawyers, of which I was one, have defended him. Mr. Graves now has the stellar legal team of Katherine Scardino and Jimmy Phillips, Jr. on his side. (Disclaimer again: these are both good friends of mine and Ms. Scardino is a member of the Board of Directors of IPOT.)

Ms. Colloff tells this story very well and in a way that makes sense to the average reader. She does more than that, however: she puts it into perspective. Why did Mr. Graves get charged in the first place? Why did the State cover up the truth about Carter’s recantations? Why did the State fight so hard to execute Mr. Graves despite all of the problems it had created? Why does it still insist on trying this plainly innocent man for capital murder?

More information on the case is at the website:  http://www.anthonygraves.org

The Texas Forensic Science Commission will meet in Dallas on Sept 17 to discuss and vote on a final report regarding the Todd Willingham case.  Below is a draft of the final report that will be discussed at the meeting.

The meeting is at the Embassy Suites Hotel Dallas Love Field, 3880 West Northwest Highway, Dallas, Texas, United States 75220 (Map and directions). The meeting starts at 9:30 AM, but is expected to last till late afternoon. The public comment period will be at the end of the meeting. Anyone can make public comments to the Commission.

Members of Texas Moratorium Network plan to attend the meeting. If you can be in Dallas on Sept 17, please plan to join us at the meeting. We have created a Facebook event page here.

Draft Report of Texas Forensic Science Commission on Todd Willingham Case