tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6238764490786855274.post43270994917513500..comments2024-03-20T10:44:31.869-05:00Comments on D.A. Confidential: Fire investigation follow-upD.A. Confidentialhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08445074681227492215noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6238764490786855274.post-67352025747022079422010-02-12T08:16:54.253-06:002010-02-12T08:16:54.253-06:00I honestly don't know enough about the facts o...I honestly don't know enough about the facts of those cases to comment intelligently, so I won't try. I think the fears you express are true for any case, and perhaps any science. Hopefully as the science gets better, the convictions will be more assured, that goes for arson and everything else.<br />I know that the guys I have worked with are very very conscientious and do not make assumptions, they even told me about cases where people had assumed arson and they proved otherwise. <br />I think sometimes people assume, when they see these cases, that we as prosecutors and investigators are just out to nail someone, that we decide in every case on someone's guilt and go with it. That has never been my practice, or my experience.<br />I definitely understand your point though, but I do want to reassure you that in my jurisdiction and experience, and this will make some people roll their eyes, but we really are interested in the truth. After all, when you convict an innocent man, a guilty one goes free, right? <br />I'd also add that from what I've seen in trial, the arson investigators explain their conclusions, and do so in a way that lay people like me can understand. It's a logical process that allows juries to evaluate their testimony. And, of course, defense lawyers are free to cross-examine and to bring in their own experts, which hopefully also addresses your concerns to some degree.D.A. Confidentialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445074681227492215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6238764490786855274.post-73363129764907757362010-02-12T07:53:07.038-06:002010-02-12T07:53:07.038-06:00DAC -- what are your thoughts on recent, and some ...DAC -- what are your thoughts on recent, and some not so recent, developments in fire investigation and the doubts these might cast on past arson convictions? I'm thinking specifically of the Cameron Todd Willingham case and the "evidence" of arson there. We also had the Ernest Willis case. Both men on death row for arson that most likely wasn't -- both accidental fires that sadly took lives -- in Willingham's case his children's, in Ernest's two elderly women he didn't know. Willingham was taken by the state, but fortunately for Ernest Willis, Rob Owen and other kick ass lawyers stepped in before it was too late. <br /><br />We have the benefits of these new theories in fire investigation, but what happens if in a decade or two we find out yet again we're wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com