Craig L. Beyler, the nationally recognized forensics expert whose public testimony was scuttled when Gov. Rick Perry shook up the Texas Forensic Science Commission, said today his testimony would have been matter-of-fact and based on his report that is already public.
Also, Capitol sources confirmed today that Perry’s office worked hard to kill funding for the Texas Forensic Science Commission during the last legislative session. “They knew what was coming,” said one source. “They worked the halls hard to defund the agency.” That news could be devasting to Perry’s public argument that his dismissal of his three appointees was “business as usual.”
Beyler would not comment about Perry’s politicization of the the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, whom experts believe was innocent in the deaths of his three daughters. Beyler’s report, already filed with the commission, is extremely critical of the Willingham investigation.
The investigators [in Willingham's case] had poor understandings of fire science and failed to acknowledge or apply the contemporaneous understanding of the limitations of fire indicators. Their methodologies did not comport with the scientific method or the process of elimination.
“I haven’t made any statements because the commission asked me not to say anything,” Beyler said in an interview with DogCanyon. Beyler had been scheduled to testify before the commission last Friday, but the hearing was canceled after Perry, at the last minute, replaced three of his four appointees to the nine-member forensics agency. The agency hired Beyler, so it’s understandable that he would follow agency instructions.
Asked what he would have said at the agency hearing had it not been cancelled, Beyler said, “Maybe the commissioners wanted to probe more deeply into things [in the report] that they did not understand.”
Beyler may get a chance to answer such questions publicly when Sen. John Whitmire holds a hearing on the matter before the Senate Criminal Justice Commission meeting he chairs. Whitmire has not finalized plans for the committee meeting. The only witness Whitmire confirmed was John Bradley, the Williamson County prosecutor who now heads the commission. Bradley told the Dallas Morning News’ Christy Hoppe that he thought the agency’s investigation would continue, but he didn’t know when.
Given Beyler’s belief that his testimony only involved an already public report, it remains a mystery why Perry decided to obstruct the commission hearing. Since he is likely the first governor in modern history to have presided over the execution of an innocent man (Perry denied Willingham a stay of execution), it may have been that his campaign considered any public airing of the issues to be potentially dangerous.
Perry faces a tough primary battle against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. But Hutchison has said little about the matter, except to say she’s a strong supporter of the death penalty and that she doesn’t know why the hearing was not allowed to proceed.
It was clear from talking to Beyler today that he wants to steer clear of the politics. He’s a scientist, and we could tell from the tone of his voice that he was somewhat embarrassed by the politicization of a matter that should be based on an open discussion of the facts. He said he had helped reporters and others understand technical details of his report.
Also today, the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News editorial boards blasted Perry for obstructing the Willingham investigation.
The Chronicle:
Several of Texas Governor Rick Perry’s appointees to state university regent boards have already learned the hard way that crossing him can be an administrative death sentence.
Playing footsie with Perry’s primary opponent, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, cost several Texas Tech regents their positions.
Now Perry has replaced three members of a state forensic commission, including its chairman, who were examining disputed evidence in an arson case that resulted in a man’s execution. The probe has put Perry in the ticklish position of being spotlighted as the executive who let a possibly innocent man be executed.
The Express-News:
There’s good reason to believe the state of Texas put Todd Willingham to death in 2004 for a crime he didn’t commit. Law enforcement and prosecutors in Corsicana determined Willingham started the 1991 fire that consumed his home and killed his three daughters. A review of the evidence, however, shows that determination was deeply flawed.
The Willingham case was one of the first taken up by the Texas Forensic Science Commission. Created by the Legislature in 2005, the commission sets standards for forensic analysis and investigates allegations of negligence or misconduct that could affect the integrity of such analysis.
The commission hired a nationally renowned fire expert to review the forensic evidence in the Willingham case. His report was a scathing indictment of junk science that pinned a prosecution on Willingham while rejecting obvious alternative explanations for how the fire started.
Two days before the commission was to hold a public hearing on the case and hear testimony from fire expert Craig Beyler, Gov. Rick Perry replaced three members of the panel, including its chairman. Perry’s pick to head the commission, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, abruptly canceled the hearing, saying he needed more time to become familiar with the case.
The explanation from the governor’s office that the commissioners’ terms expired on Sept. 1 doesn’t hold water. Among the thousands of gubernatorial appointments to boards and commissions, holdovers are common for months or even years. No reasonable explanation exists for Perry to sack the forensic science commission’s leadership at this crucial stage and impede its progress in the Willingham review.
That review is not a proxy for the death penalty debate. It is about how bad science can empower an overzealous prosecution.
The review also isn’t about politics — at least it shouldn’t be. It’s about improving the system of justice in Texas by determining how a highly questionable case made it past jury members, a judge, more appellate judges, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and, ultimately, the governor.
Excellent coverage, thanks.
I’m against the death penalty. This whole thing makes my skin crawl. And I hope it’s Perry’s downfall.
The more information gets out, and the more attention this gets, the worse Perry looks. I so hope this leads to much more conversation to the death penalty in general, which I, too, strongly oppose.
Glenn, I’m glad you use the photo of Mr. Willingham, and I assume one of his children, but it hurts every time I see it.
Great coverage and website. I might disagree with the Express News’ characterization that it is “not a proxy for the death penalty debate. It is about how bad science can empower an overzealous prosecution.”
Well, yes, but capitol punishment can be just and effective ONLY if a state has sufficient safeguards that bad science was not used. This case clearly shows that Texas lacks these safeguards and has a tendency to elect politicians who circumvent these safeguards. Therefore, the only conclusion I can make is that capitol punishment cannot be justly implemented in Texas.
Although Perry’s temporizing is making the headlines, the real scandal is that neither the review board nor Perry’s Office delayed the execution when it was given compelling evidence of innocence. We need to get beyond Perry’s hiding for political cover. That is what politicians do. The real issue is systemic and won’t be solved simply with the election of another weak politician like Perry.
The burden of proof is on proponents of capitol punishment to demonstrate that a leader like Rick Perry could never be elected as Texas governor.