Saturday, October 16, 2010

The Science & The Humanity: How Literature and Critical Thinking Are Clearin...

 
 

Sent to you by گریلا via Google Reader:

 
 

via James Randi Educational Foundation by jrefbrandon@gmail.com (Brandon K. Thorp) on 10/15/10

This is an article about a brave and brilliant bit of journalism that appeared in The New Yorker a year ago last month. Its author was David Grann, and it was titled "Trial By Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?"

The answer to the title is: "Probably." The man in question, Cameron Todd Willingham, was executed in 2004 for the murder of his three young daughters, Amber, Karmon, and Kameron. The alleged murder weapons were fire and smoke. On the morning of December 23rd, 1991, as his children lay sleeping, Willingham allegedly poured a "liquid accelerant" (such as kerosene or lighter fluid) thoughout his young family's small two-bedroom home in the little Texan town of Corsicana, and set it ablaze.

"Trial By Fire" is a magnificent story, because it chronicles a probable injustice not by immediately exonerating Willingham, but by first appearing to confirm his guilt. Grann's narrative begins with a slow, dispassionate account of the events of that ugly morning, before subtly switching perspectives to follow the apparently heroic quests of the forensic investigators upon whose testimony the prosecution's case would rest. They are Douglas Fogg and Manuel Vazquez; the former a decorated war hero, who had, by December '91, been fighting fires for twenty years, and the latter a Texan arson expert given to such windy proclamations as "Fire does not destroy evidence; it creates it" and "The fire tells the story. I am just the interpretor."

Engaging in a bit of editorial time-travel, Grann follows the investigators through the remains of Willingham's home:  

As [Vazquez] and Fogg removed some of the clutter, they noticed deep charring along the base of the walls. Because gases become buoyant when heated, flames ordinarily burn upward. But Vasquez and Fogg observed that the fire had burned extremely low down, and that there were peculiar char patterns on the floor, shaped like puddles.

Vasquez's mood darkened. He followed the "burn trailer" – the path etched by the fire – which led from the hallway into the children's bedroom. Sunlight filtering through the broken windows illuminated more of the irregularly shaped char patterns. A flammable or combustible liquid doused on a floor will cause a fire to concentrate in these kinds of pockets, which is why investigators refer to them as "pour patterns" or "puddle configurations."

The fire had burned through layers of carpeting and tile and plywood flooring. Moreover, the metal springs under the children's beds had turned white – a sign that intense heat had radiated beneath them. Seeing that the floor had some of the deepest burns, Vasquez deduced that it had been hotter than the ceiling, which, given that heat rises, was, in his words, "not normal."

The investigators discover other signs of arson. The placement of a refrigerator in front of one of the home's exits; the presence of "crazed glass" (glass which has cracked because of sudden, extreme temperature change); gasoline residue on the home's front steps; and, most damningly, V-pattern burn marks on three different walls in various parts of the home, suggesting that the fire originated in multiple places. Soon, "both investigators had a clear vision of what had happened," Grann writes.

Someone had poured liquid accelerant throughout the children's room, even under their beds, then poured some more along the adjoining hallway and out the front door, creating a 'fire barrier' that prevented anyone from escaping; similarly, a prosecutor later suggested, the refrigerator in the kitchen had been moved to block the back-door exit. The house, in short, had been deliberately transformed into a death trap. […] The fire was now considered a triple homicide, and Todd Willingham […] became the prime suspect.

Willingham's guilt was ultimately decided by a single question. The fire experts wanted to know: Had he donned shoes before leaving the house? The answer was no. "Vasquez was now convinced that Willingham had killed his children," Grann writes. "If the floor had been soaked with a liquid accelerant and the fire had burned low, as the evidence suggested, Willingham could not have run out of the house the way he had described without badly burning his feet. A medical report indicated that his feet had been unscathed." The investigators concluded that Grann must have run out of the house, pouring accelerant behind him. 

Reading the story, the case seems closed. One wonders how the remainder of the text could possibly justify the ambiguity of Grann's title. Did Texas execute an innocent man? Obviously not. (This effect may be somewhat diminished for those discovering the story here for the first time, as my introduction gives away the game.)

Such certainty begins to wear as Grann recounts Willingham's trial and we witness dubious testimonies making their way into the record. Willingham's Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin posters are said to be evidence of "cultive-type activities" (sic) and likely indicators of Satanism. A psychiatrist says Willingham is an obvious sociopath, though he's never met the man.

Still, the prosecution's case is overwhelming. Eyewitnesses to the fire's immediate aftermath report that Willingham was behaving strangely – too cool, too in control. One of Willingham's fellow prisoners claims that Willingham has confessed his guilt. And, of course, the evidence of arson is inarguable. Vazquez, the fiire investigator, says: "The fire does not lie." Willingham is sentenced to death.

Years pass, and Willingham makes an unlikely friend. Her name is Elizabeth Gilbert, a woman who becomes his penpal and, later, his advocate. As we read, her diligent investigations explode the prosecution's case, one piece of evidence at a time. As it turns out, all of the witnesses who claimed to have seen Willingham acting strangely after the fire said so after his arrest – when they were first approached, they claimed he was hysterical; out of his mind with grief and fear. (He even blackened a fireman's eye in his attempt to re-enter the burning house.) The fellow inmate who claimed Willingham had confessed to him is revealed to be a lunatic. (He subsequently recanted his accusation, and then recanted his recantation, and then half-recanted once more when interviewed by The New Yorker.) The most dramatic refutation of the prosecution's case comes when Gilbert tracks down a Dr. Gerald Hurst, another arson expert who is also an actual scientist. This, as it turns out, is a rarity among arson investigators. Grann writes:

In 1992, the National Fire Protection Association, which promotes fire prevention and safety, published its first scientifically based guidelines to arson investigation. Still, many arson investigators believed that what they did was more an art than a science—a blend of experience and intuition. In 1997, the International Association of Arson Investigators filed a legal brief arguing that arson sleuths should not be bound by a 1993 Supreme Court decision requiring experts who testified at trials to adhere to the scientific method. What arson sleuths did, the brief claimed, was "less scientific." By 2000, after the courts had rejected such claims, arson investigators increasingly recognized the scientific method, but there remained great variance in the field, with many practitioners still relying on the unverified techniques that had been used for generations. "People investigated fire largely with a flat-earth approach," Hurst told me. "It looks like arson—therefore, it's arson." He went on, "My view is you have to have a scientific basis. Otherwise, it's no different than witch hunting."

Upon examination, all of the arson evidence amassed by Fogg and Vazquez proved faulty or meaningless. They said there was evidence of liquid accelerant on Willingham's front porch. (Photographs reveal that this is where Willingham kept his grill, along with a bottle of lighter fluid. No other samples from the burned house turned up any similar traces of accelerant.) They said the Corsicana fire was plainly spread by accelerant, because it burned "fast and hot." (Yet "accelerated" fires, it turns out, burn at approximately the same temperatures as non-"accelerated" ones.) They claimed that the melted aluminum doorframe at the Willingham house constituted evidence of accelerant use. (Yet wood-fueled fires can burn at up to eight hundred degrees hotter than aluminum's melting point, which is 1220.58 °F.) They said the brown stains on the floor were accelerant remnants. (Actually, accelerants tend not to leave stains; most post-fire stains result from the mixing of water from fire hoses with ash and charred debris.) They said fire hot enough to produce "crazed glass" would have to be accelerant-fueled. (In fact, "crazed glass" is usually the result of rapid cooling; the result of being doused with fire hoses after exposure to flame – in California, it was shown that crazed glass could appear in houses at the outskirts of a brush fire.) As to the multiple V-shaped burn patterns, said to indicate multiple points of origin for the fire, controlled burns have revealed that there can be many such V-shaped burn patterns as a result of "flashover" – "the point at which radiant heat causes a fire in a room to become a room on fire." And if Willingham had escaped his home immediately before flashover occurred, there is no reason to suppose the floor would have burned his bare feet.

Tthese discoveries were made late. Dr. Hurst received the Willingham file only weeks before Willingham's scheduled execution. He got a preliminary report out to Texas in record time – "in such a rush he didn't pause to fix the typos," according to Grann.

In Texas, there was no authoritative body with sufficient expertise to analyze Dr. Hurt's report. In fact, there is no evidence that those who received the report read it, even as they rejected Willingham's last round of appeals. Willingham was killed on February 17th, at 6:40 p.m.

The Innocence Project became interested in Willingham's case later that year, and a small group of anti-death penalty activists began the long process of turning Willingham into an example. Grann's New Yorker article, along with a more succinct piece in th Chicago Tribune, gained the case widespread attention late last year. As a result, Willingham is likely to very soon become the first modern American prisoner to be executed and subsequently exonerated.

Willingham is in the news this week because of eleventh-hour attempts to stall the exoneration process. One might sympathize with them. Indeed, it is not absolutely certain that Willingham is innocent. The more salient fact, however, is that no one can say with absolute certainty that he isn't. 

In my travels through the skeptical community, I have on occasion heard journalism described as "soft," unscientific, and generally of only middling use to the cause of skepticism. Yet the science that may exonerate Mr. Willingham has existed for a long time. It was a piece of creative nonfiction that propelled his case into the spotlight, made people think, and will soon shape the way capital punishment is discussed in the only advanced, democratic nation on the planet still cleaving to the practice.

The kind of make-believe science that convicted Todd Willingham is nothing but divination – it is tea-leaf reading, with the tea leaves replaced with ash and soot. It is the kind of subtle witchcraft that only a very specialized kind of expert could recognize as such, and without quick-learning, impassioned journalists like Mr. Grann stalking the planet, we may never have learned of it.

Journalism, at its best, is an act of skepticism performed publicly. Mr. Grann's article is a perfect example of the form. From the JREF to him, a big thank-you for doing his job so well, and for saving the lives of future innocents, who with any luck will have no idea how much they owe him.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment