Comments on: New Forensic Agency Head Bradley: Best to Meet in Secret http://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/11/10/new-forensic-agency-head-bradley-best-to-meet-in-secret/ Politics, Opinion and Culture, for Texas and Beyond Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:17:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Robert Naglehttp://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/11/10/new-forensic-agency-head-bradley-best-to-meet-in-secret/comment-page-1/#comment-1153 Robert Nagle Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:05:55 +0000 http://www.dogcanyon.org/?p=2877#comment-1153 See also: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Secrecy-Honorable-Daniel-Patrick-Moynihan/dp/0300080794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258038310&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">Daniel Patrick Moynihan's milestone study of secrecy in government</a>. See also: Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s milestone study of secrecy in government.

]]> By: Doranhttp://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/11/10/new-forensic-agency-head-bradley-best-to-meet-in-secret/comment-page-1/#comment-1133 Doran Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:54:28 +0000 http://www.dogcanyon.org/?p=2877#comment-1133 Glenn, this was an important and timely post. Your comments are right on point. I agree with most of what you wrote, with an exception having to do with this statement of yours. "Experts now say the fire wasn’t arson, meaning Willingham was innocent."It is my impression from reading about this case that the Beyler report concluded that there were not enough scientific facts, or scientific evidence in the record, to conclude that the fire was caused by arson. I have read that Beyler concluded that a finding of arson can neither be supported nor ruled out. If that is the correct conclusion, it does not follow that Willingham was innocent. Do you know if Beyler actually said something along these lines?I think it important to keep in mind that the FSC was not looking into the Willingham case for the purpose of determining if an innocent person had been unjustifiably found guilty and executed. The FSC was looking into whether the forensic science of that case was scientifically sound. Glenn, this was an important and timely post. Your comments are right on point. I agree with most of what you wrote, with an exception having to do with this statement of yours. “Experts now say the fire wasn’t arson, meaning Willingham was innocent.”

It is my impression from reading about this case that the Beyler report concluded that there were not enough scientific facts, or scientific evidence in the record, to conclude that the fire was caused by arson. I have read that Beyler concluded that a finding of arson can neither be supported nor ruled out. If that is the correct conclusion, it does not follow that Willingham was innocent. Do you know if Beyler actually said something along these lines?

I think it important to keep in mind that the FSC was not looking into the Willingham case for the purpose of determining if an innocent person had been unjustifiably found guilty and executed. The FSC was looking into whether the forensic science of that case was scientifically sound.

]]> By: Derekhttp://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/11/10/new-forensic-agency-head-bradley-best-to-meet-in-secret/comment-page-1/#comment-1130 Derek Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:45:29 +0000 http://www.dogcanyon.org/?p=2877#comment-1130 Glenn, I agree with you regarding secret meetings but an additional caveat to Bradley's, "new rules" and his warning of listening to "those with agendas", ie., the press, is the backhanded implication that the work of the previous commission was somehow flawed. Perry has been flopping around on this like a fish on a river bank, first saying the original commission's term expired, then, when the matter heated up, insisting that, Willingham was a "monster" who murdered his children. Perry's credibility couldn't be more at stake. He needs cover and it appears Bradley is helping to provide it. Glenn, I agree with you regarding secret meetings but an additional caveat to Bradley’s, “new rules” and his warning of listening to “those with agendas”, ie., the press, is the backhanded implication that the work of the previous commission was somehow flawed. Perry has been flopping around on this like a fish on a river bank, first saying the original commission’s term expired, then, when the matter heated up, insisting that, Willingham was a “monster” who murdered his children. Perry’s credibility couldn’t be more at stake. He needs cover and it appears Bradley is helping to provide it.

]]> By: Joehttp://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/11/10/new-forensic-agency-head-bradley-best-to-meet-in-secret/comment-page-1/#comment-1129 Joe Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:17:34 +0000 http://www.dogcanyon.org/?p=2877#comment-1129 "[T]he Forensic Science Commission is supposed to be examining the examiners."The ancient Roman poet Juvenal made the same point almost two millennia ago, when he asked, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who shall guard the guardians?)" (The 1987 Tower Commission investigation of the Iran-contra scandal used the Juvenal quote as the epigraph to its report.)Under Governor Thirty-Nine Percent, the answer is an emphatic "No one!"And now, Paul Burka speculates, Goodhair wants to take this insanely perverted attitude national: http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=5262.Heaven forfend! “[T]he Forensic Science Commission is supposed to be examining the examiners.”

The ancient Roman poet Juvenal made the same point almost two millennia ago, when he asked, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who shall guard the guardians?)” (The 1987 Tower Commission investigation of the Iran-contra scandal used the Juvenal quote as the epigraph to its report.)

Under Governor Thirty-Nine Percent, the answer is an emphatic “No one!”

And now, Paul Burka speculates, Goodhair wants to take this insanely perverted attitude national: http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=5262.

Heaven forfend!

]]> By: Joyce L. Arnoldhttp://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/11/10/new-forensic-agency-head-bradley-best-to-meet-in-secret/comment-page-1/#comment-1128 Joyce L. Arnold Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:21:39 +0000 http://www.dogcanyon.org/?p=2877#comment-1128 Glenn: "Secret government meetings serve mostly to make those attending them feel more important than the people left outside.""Insiders and Outsiders" frames so much of decision-making processes.Reba, thanks for the link. Glenn: “Secret government meetings serve mostly to make those attending them feel more important than the people left outside.”

“Insiders and Outsiders” frames so much of decision-making processes.

Reba, thanks for the link.

]]> By: Reba Saxonhttp://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/11/10/new-forensic-agency-head-bradley-best-to-meet-in-secret/comment-page-1/#comment-1127 Reba Saxon Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:53:56 +0000 http://www.dogcanyon.org/?p=2877#comment-1127 Here is the link to the Senate Criminal Justice Committee members if you would like to contact them and have your opinion considered in this meeting about conducting the Texas Forensic Science Commission away from public view:http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Committees/MembershipCmte.aspx?LegSess=81R&CmteCode=C590 Here is the link to the Senate Criminal Justice Committee members if you would like to contact them and have your opinion considered in this meeting about conducting the Texas Forensic Science Commission away from public view:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Committees/MembershipCmte.aspx?LegSess=81R&CmteCode=C590

]]>