If the Forensics Fit, You Must Acquit
Remember that O.J. Simpson trial? No, not that one. Or that one. The original one. Of course you do. I was driving across the country because I had nothing better to do after graduating, like “a job,” when I first heard of the murders. Then I was glued to the television at the Fairfield Inn in Wichita watching the Bronco. Can you imagine if that no-speed chase were to happen today? It’d be, like, one of Twitter’s top trending topics, along with #Carrie Prejean sex tape.
So why the sudden resurrection of The Juice? As reported by DMN’s Robert Garrett, Rick Perry said Wednesday that he was right to accuse Texas of using “junk science” in arson cases, such as Cameron Todd Willingham’s, because Barry Scheck was part of Simpson’s defense team. Which also used junk science. Like the bloody glove. And Kato Kaelin.
Before you say, But Eileen! That doesn’t make any sense!, remember that Scheck is co-founder of The Innocence Project. NOW DO YOU GET IT? The connection between Scheck and executing an innocent man is so stunningly obvious, if you work in the governor’s office. Perry has been forced to go on defense once again over the Willingham case and his firings of certain members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission now that legislative hearings are further exploring what happened.
Perry deputy press secretary Katherine Cesinger issued a statement: It is unfortunate that the anti-death penalty activists and O.J. Simpson’s lawyer, Barry Scheck, would choose to hang their hat on a case that Texas and federal courts upheld on numerous occasions – nine times by federal courts, including four times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“O.J. Simpson’s lawyer?” Um, in 1995. You know what I was in 1995? Broke and bitter. See what a difference 14 years can make? Outside of being “O.J. Simpson’s lawyer,” Scheck is a DNA expert. Is Ms. Cesinger? I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking. I mean, clearly she’s an authority on something. The statement goes on to say that Texans overwhelmingly support the death penalty and expect justice. Yes, but I’d like to think that Texans who support the death penalty support it mostly for guilty people.
Maybe that’s the difference between the people of Texas and Perry’s office.
Tagged: barry scheck, cameron todd willingham, katherine cesinger, o.j. simpson, rick perry.
Anonymous says:
Barry Scheck a DNA expert? Please. He’s a lawyer, not a scientist. The only thing he’s expert in is closing arguments and chasing cameras.
Reply »
Don't Mess w/ Pink Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but that dismissive little rant about Scheck looks like sour grapes to me from someone, perhaps, in the Gov’s office.
Scheck deserves mountains of respect for starting the Innocence Project. They have secured the exoneration of over 200 people who were proven innocent through DNA testing.
When you can say you’ve saved 200 people from prison and 17 from death row because of wrongful convictions, get back to us. K?
Reply »
Don't Mess w/ Pink Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I meant “K, asshole?”
Reply »
Eileen says:
Barry’s just a diversion, which is what they want. Craig Beyler’s the man. And his credentials are impeccable.
Reply »
West Texas Hillbilly says:
Speaking of DNA, does this mean that Carrie Prejean’s sex tape is on topic?
Reply »
treehugger Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Depends whether she was on topic or on bottomic.
Reply »
West Texas Hillbilly Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 8:44 am
I think she was just on hand for the video recording.
Reply »
treehugger Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Ah, bringing a new meaning to digital recording.
Reply »
West Texas Hillbilly Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
And she retains all the residuals.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Who is “they?” You’re the one who deemed Scheck an expert. And it’s hard to call Scheck a diversion when all he does is put himself in the middle of it all by constantly having press conferences and putting out statements.
Reply »
Eileen Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“They” is the Perry office which put out this statement. As for Scheck being an expert, please see DMWP’s comments above about the 200 exonerations through DNA evidence. Plus he’s – oh look at that! – a commissioner of forensic science in New York. That’s why I called him an expert.
Reply »
Eileen Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
But wait a minute! What do you think of the Beyler report?
Reply »
Don't Mess w/ Pink Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
*crickets*
Reply »
potted meat says:
IIIIN is ON!
/hot dog.
DMwP…yep. yep. yep. and yep, to. Also.
/ Prejean commentary. You be my surrogate. I can’t take the heat.
//It’s not fair.
Reply »
Pinkles says:
Carrie & Larry, Sarah & Perry
;)
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b153404_carrie_prejean_hearts_sarah_palinlarry.html
There is a joke in there some where, and I’ll bet it’s a good one
Reply »
LegeBoy says:
Ah, man, I miss that trial. Those were the days! We skipped class — high school, not college, where the old people were at that time — to watch the verdict being read live. We even called the garbage men in to watch with us, because they had stopped in front of my house to listen to it on radio. And, I mean real garbage men, not these guys, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100135/, or these guys, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swQi4CAzmrA.
Reply »
Jim says:
Right. And law school applications decreased during and shortly after the O.J. trial because undergraduates who watched realized that the interminably-long hearings, arguments, etc. were not as cool as L.A. Law.
Reply »
all_hail_the_pink says:
To Ms. Cesinger I would only have this to say…”It is unfortunate you choose to work for an idiot!”
Reply »
Rog says:
I support the death penalty. It just kind of defeats the purpose when you execute the wrong guy.
Reply »
Chilicook says:
If Scheck is still refered to as “OJ Simpson’s lawyer” does that mean Rick Perry is still a Democrat?
Reply »
Frank says:
Eileen,
Maybe there’s a reason you didn’t have like “a job” after graduating college. Although I’m not sure I’d classify blogging as a job. This case was upheld four times by the Supreme Court. Clearly we should value the opinion of OJ’s lawyer (and yours) over that of nine federal judges. You knock Ms. Cesinger for referencing the OJ trial from 1995, meanwhile your whole article is about a case from 1992. It’s unfortunate that the Governor’s office needs to defend itself to people like you. Maybe OJ’s lawyer can start giving ethics lectures with Elliott Spitzer.
Reply »
Don't Mess w/ Pink Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
If it weren’t for Barry Scheck, 39 citizens of the State of Texas would either have been executed or still serving prison sentences for crimes they did not commit. It seems to me we would all be well served by listening to Mr. Scheck.
Returning to our regularly scheduled real issue: Did the Governor interfere with the work of the commission because he felt their findings would be politically damaging to him personally? I don’t know. But it sure looks that way. If so, was that ethically or morally wrong? Answer for yourself.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Frank,
The factual and rational bases of your post are not enhanced by your nastiness. It, in fact, detracts from whatever point you are trying to make.
The Supreme Court, of course, never considered the case on its merits–let alone four times. But that is completely beside the point. Nor is this about “valu[ing] the opinion of OJ’s lawyer…over that of nine federal judges,” as you so snarkily and sarcastically suggest.
The Innocence Project filed the request for review of the Willis and Willingham cases with the Forensic Science Commission. They did so based in part on a 2006 report of 5 well-known and highly respected arson experts from around the country (not folks with political agendas) which concluded that there was no scientific basis for concluding that the Willingham fire was arson. You can read their report here: http://tinyurl.com/iparsonreview .
The Commission as part of its statutorily mandated duty to review cases it accepts “in a timely manner” hired an internationally known, Harvard PhD, fire scientist (Craig Beyler) who reached the same conclusion. You can read that report here: http://tinyurl.com/TFSCBeylerRpt
Barry Scheck, as the head of the organization filing the complaint has every right to speak out on this matter, but not even he is saying to value his opinion above others. He’s asking the commission to value the opinion of renowned experts in this field over the fire investigators who originally charged Willingham with arson. He’s asking Texas to take a look and see if there are others being held in prison here (746 arson convicts as of July 09) on faulty evidence unsupported by tenets of modern science.
This is about science, and its impact on our justice system, not politics. That the case is from 1992 is practically the whole point, as NFPA 921 (the first attempt to formally inject scientific standards into arson investigation) was not issued until after the Willingham trial. The issue of whether that fact (coupled with Dr. Hurst’s report at the time, February 2004) constituted new evidence received about 88 minutes worth of review from our justice system–in the governor’s office, that being the 88 minutes prior to Willingham’s execution when Hurst’s report and Willingham’s request for stay were faxed to the governor’s office. Willingham’s attorney asked for 30 more days for a more thorough review of that issue. Science and law, not politics. To date, there is only one entity that has tried to inject politics into this affair and that is the governor and his staff.
One must ask, what is it about people and organizations who are trying to exonerate innocent people that bothers you and the governor so? Think about that: innocent people.
Reply »
Pinkles says:
If the governor wants to defend himself against attacks, this is all well and good. The long and the short of it is simply that his record of dishonesty, coupled with his supicious timing in gutting this commission are what he must answer for. If he doesn’t like this, it is understandable. But it’s his record and his behavior he is answering to…not anybody else’s. Muddying the water just makes him look even more dishonest.
Reply »
dudley sharp says:
Media Meltdown: Nonsense, Trial by Fire and the New Yorker
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/04/cameron-todd-willingham-media-meltdown–the-death-penalty.aspx
Cameron Todd Willingham: Some reality needs to be acknowledged
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx
“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx
The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx
Reply »