What Must Forensic Science Learn from the Willingham Case?
by Moderator on Jan.06, 2010, under Topics for discussion
In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of murder and executed for the deaths of his three young children by arson at the family home in Texas. The case gained attention when an investigative report in The New Yorker ostensibly demonstrated that, contrary to the claims of the prosecution, there was no evidence that the house fire was intentionally set, and that the State of Texas executed an innocent man.
Some point to this case as another example of the problems associated with forensic science and an additional example of issues like those noted in the National Academy of Science report.
What is your opinion of this case and how does it inform the current debate in forensic science? Fire science is one of those areas of expertise typically found outside of public forensic labs. Like traffic investigation and blood stain pattern interpretation, these disciplines may be used with limited oversight. How might they be improved?
January 11th, 2010 on 1:51 pm
One thing that I hope can be avoided is people arguing that “fire investigation is not really forensic science.” This would allow the forensic science community to dodge any responsibility for the myriad of errors that occur in fire investigations.
But, just because most of the practitioners of fire investigation do not qualify for membership in the AAFS, they are daily making sophisticated decisions about chemistry and physics. There are many other forensic science disciplines, such as fingerprints, firearms, crime scene inspection and document examination, where the practitioners likewise would not qualify for academy membership.
January 24th, 2010 on 6:39 pm
Since I am a victim of a wrongful indictment, I have been reading many things about Fire science as well. In my current situation, I lived in an apartment complex, where there was a mall approximatley 200 feet to the East and a Wal-Mart and shopping center to the North approximately 300 feet. There was a large amount of foot traffic that frequented through this area on many days.
The evidence that they have is all circumstantial. While people are convicted on this type of evidence, the Prosecution is lacking two things:
1) There has been no incendiary device found
2) They can’t place me at the fire due to a alibi and timecard printed out from my employer.
When my insurance company completed their report, they put in the report things such as:
1) Due to blaze destruction, I can’t rule out the possibilty of an electrical fire at this time.
2) Based upon my investigation, the fire is ruled undetermined at this time.
My insurance company paid the claim 60 days after the fire happened.
For over 1 year, the agencies involved left it undetermined. It was with three short sentences that they changed it to incendiary, submitted it the DA, and an indictment was issued. Twenty-one months later, I was arrested and charged with crime.
I have also presented this to another Professional Engineer in my local area, and they have read through all reports, looked at pictures, and stated that there is no way, because of the blaze destruction that they can automatically say that it was incendiary set.
I feel really bad for Cameron Todd Willingham. His investigation went awry and was not carried out like it should’ve been, as set forth in NFPA 921.
Fire science is just that…a science, not an art as the investigators have seemed to use in my case.
God Bless,
Robert
March 18th, 2010 on 7:28 pm
Robert was tried and acquitted in under 30 minutes. It is a good thing he is not serving time for setting a fire that could not be proved to have been set. It’s his bad luck that he is now broke.
June 4th, 2010 on 3:48 pm
Whilst not denying the issues with the fire investigation, where is the critism of the legal process? Forensic science is only one part of a larger picture yet the finger is always pointed as the forensic scientist. Yes follow up and be critical of shoddy forensic science but let’s also follow up and be critical when the legal system is a fault.
September 23rd, 2010 on 8:22 am
This case demonstrates the need for national standards in all areas of forensic science. As John pointed out there are practitioners involved in fields who have not yet qualified for membership in the AAFS or certification through the IAI. Yet the majority of these folks are engaged in their duties in a serious, diligent and professional manner.
The problem lies in that without national standards, that in some areas the situation will lend itself to people conducting scientific work they should not be doing.