Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley is now the new Chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission. He was appointed by Governor Rick Perry. Since then, Bradley has promised a "disciplined, scientific approach" as the agency continues examining evidence that resulted in the 2004 death penalty arson conviction of a man from Corsicana named Cameron Todd Willingham. Unfortunately, Bradley has also indicated he has no intention of the TFSC conducting its business in the open - in public.
In a Dallas Morning News article, Bradley says "The commission does not decide whether persons are guilty or innocent of criminal offenses." On that point, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas certainly agrees.
However, FOIFT also feels strongly that the agency can most definitely help clarify a troubling question. Whether Willingham may have been executed wrongly and if so, what safeguards should be put into place to prevent it from happening again? FOIFT also believes this business, the people's business, should be conducted openly and in plain view of the public. How? By continuing to investigate new information that has come to light such as the Beyler report, a professional forensic review sought by the agency from one of the top arson expert's. Dr. Craig Beyler concluded essentially that the evidence did not support the crime.
That report, however, was never presented to the TFSC because just two days before he was scheduled to present his findings "Governor Perry replaced four of the nine commission members, including the Chairman."
Now, the Governor's new chairman is pushing for additional ways to keep the TFSC's business conducted in the dark, including "...new requirements to keep information confidential until a final decision is rendered." John Bradley has also asked the Attorney General for advice on how to better protect against "interference and improper outside influences."
The tough-on-crime prosecutor points out the commission was created four years ago "to determine only whether there was negligence or misconduct by an accredited laboratory" conducting the forensic evidence analysis.
In other words, it's okay for tax money to be used for second-guessing crime labs but not for more closely examining whether an innocent man was put to death for a crime arson experts now say he couldn't have committed. Really? Where's the Justice in that Mr. Bradley?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)