Several members of a state commission investigating whether Texas executed a man based on a flawed arson investigation had urged Gov. Rick Perry not to replace the commission's chairman as a critical hearing approached.
But Perry did just that last week as part of a shakeup that could postpone the commission's findings in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, whom Texas put to death in 2004 for killing his three children in a fire.
Critics have charged that Perry, by removing three of the nine members of the Forensic Science Commission days before it was to hear a critical report on the arson investigation in Willingham's case, was trying to delay the panel's inquiry into Willingham's case, perhaps until after he faces a challenge from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the March 2 Republican primary.
Last week, Perry aides told Austin defense lawyer Sam Bassett that the governor would not reappoint him to the commission. Since his term ended Sept. 1, Bassett was immediately replaced as the body's chairman by John Bradley, Williamson County's tough-on-crime district attorney. Two other commission members also learned they would not get new terms.
But in a Sept. 4 letter, commission member Sarah Kerrigan had urged Perry to keep Bassett at the helm. "Mr. Bassett has provided dedicated leadership to the commission during his two terms, and I recommend his reappointment under the strongest possible terms," Kerrigan wrote.
She did not mention the Willingham case in her letter, but she commended Bassett's leadership as the commission worked through a backlog of cases he inherited as chairman. She said Bassett's reappointment would "ensure a measure of stability to the commission during a time of great scrutiny."
Kerrigan, a forensic science professor at Sam Houston State University who was appointed to the commission by Attorney General Greg Abbott, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Perry's office has offered little explanation for his decision not to reappoint Bassett.
"There are a number of things taken into consideration when selecting appointees to fill a position, including letters from concerned stakeholders," Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said Tuesday.
Alan Levy, who works in the Tarrant County district attorney's office, said Tuesday that he also had sent a letter urging Perry to retain Bassett as chairman.
Levy, like Bassett, learned recently from the governor's office that he would not be reappointed to the forensic panel.
"I thought the commission was at a critical stage," Levy said. Levy said he sent the letter Sept. 8 after Kerrigan told him Bassett was rumored to be in jeopardy. Perry's office did not respond, he said.
The Forensic Science Commission made international news in August when a fire scientist it hired, Craig Beyler, concluded the arson ruling that was key to Willingham's 1991 conviction was based on bad science, unproven theories and personal bias by arson investigators.
The evidence, Beyler said, did not support an arson finding — raising the prospect that Texas executed an innocent man.
Beyler was to address the commission Friday, but Bradley, the new chairman, canceled the meeting to familiarize himself with the agency's work, he said.
Time magazine reported Tuesday that Aliece Watts, a forensic expert from Fort Worth whom Perry also chose not to reappoint, also encouraged the governor to keep Bassett. And the state's leading association for defense lawyers asked Perry to keep Bassett.
Terms for each of the three commission members that Perry did not reappoint ended Sept. 1. But appointees regularly stay in their posts for months or years after their terms expire.
Asked last week about the timing of the shakeup, Perry said, "If you've got a whole new investigation going forward, it makes a lot more sense to put the new people in now and let them start the full process."
6 comments:
This article is one sided.. based on only the article itself one would say Yes, texas did actuly did this. But we don't know much of the other side mainly because the people who were trying to get answers from Gov. perry were trying to use them against him to ruin his name. The article also included only possitve letters of the previous head commisioner, but we dont know if there was any negative information about him. However From the look and point this article makes though, you can infer that the previous head commisioner was a great head, sense many people wanted him back again, and that by perrys actions he was indeed trying to stall the investigation, so the state of texas would not get blamed for such a action was knowingly killing and innocent man.
ok. lets see if i can refrain from using profanity. what is this personal bias crap that the arsen investiators had? fghuhg. did rick perry just decide that having an innocent man in jail would look bad on his record? so he refuses to rehire several people on the investigation commitee so he can go ahead and kill him? ugh i dont understand! ehfg. maybe this will lead to mr. toupe-wearing rick perry not getting reelected in 2010 [:
I think they did execute an innocent man. It sounds like all the evidence was either biast or faulty. People have been trying to prove them wrong with faulty science but the people who were in charge just seem to keep covering it up. when people deny the truth and start to hide things thats when people get suspicious. i think replacing him was the right choice because obvioulsy he just wants success or support rather then to take in the consideration that someones life is at stake. hopefully with this situation at hand the government will go and evaluate the methods of and risks of the lethal injection. If it's not 100 percent then why is it used?
It is a shame, this man was executed after being wrongly accused... but even if he was as innocent as i believe he is, it's too late, unfortunately. The men responsible for his death should be tried and investigated, but other than that, there is nothing else to do... There is obviously some kind of conspiracy going on here, and it sickens me to know that this man was given the needle even though there was a strong suspicion he wasnt guilty. Do i sense some kind of connection between his prosecuters, the people in charge of his death, and maybe even some higher-ups? Maybe, maybe not, but hopefully this will be figured out and Justice will crush those responsible for this man's death.
Hmmm...this is a very interesting article. From how I understand it, Perry seems to be avoiding the actual questions asked. I don't think it's really a point of whether an innocent man has been executed or not, (I'm not saying it's not important) but whether Perry purposely removed the staff. Perhaps he knew something was wrong in the hearing, but couldn't it have been an innocent attempt to put some new faces on the forensics committee? Personally, I think this is all politics. It's a game...whoever plays better wins the majority. Maybe Perry saw this as an optimum opportunity to make people say, "Hey. You know what? He cares about people...he's appointing new faces to the forensics...I have a chance." People who are not in politics are unable to exactly comprehend this situation, but, in a way, we are. We can "think" like them, but not really.
As for the innocent man, that's a hard question. It depends on the type of evidence provided in front of each panel. It could also depend on the way the evidence was prevented. All of these could have proven to be bias.
it appears that an innocent person has been put to death and that gov. perry knows this as well. and he knows that he could have stopped it but for whatever reason refused. now it looks like he is getting rid of the panel members not on his side and replacing them with people who are. politics at its best. (who) gov perry (gets what) wants to get reelected (how) by covering up his mistakes to the people (and when) so they will vote for him in the next election. but this is just my own opinion...
Post a Comment