Arson investigation = "Junk Science"?

I just read the entire article and can honestly say that I did the same thing that the witnesses did. At first I felt that he was innocent, and thought of my kids with a lump in my throat. Then upon hearing the evidence of the investigators I felt that I had made a mistake in feeling sorry for him, I actually called him a piece of $#!+ while I read it. Then as I read on and followed the independant investigation and heard about the mistakes and facts where people tend to follow the trend set by the pro's I started to wonder. Then when Hurst got involved and completely destroied the prosecution's case I began to feel like crap about my previous comment toward Willingham. WOW!

I think that these nuts in Texass need to stop thinking about their reputations and start accepting responsability for their mistakes (because if there is an afterlife they will be judged on thier actions and inactions alike).

mnf ,Thanks for bringing this to light. Definately something to think about.

Thanks mnf. I don't normally spend time reading stuff like that but I'm glad I did. At least things are heading in the right direction now. Go Science.

Thanks for posting this. Hopefully those implicated in taking an innocent life will be motivated and shamed enough to actually start doing their jobs, and maybe even join the new century.

It's just a never-ending source of amazement to me that people just don't do what they're supposed to do, just shirk responsibilities and slough of their duties. I dunno. I must have a very different work ethic.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I'm not sure that I wholly condemn the two guys who did the initial investigation, they made mistakes which were perhaps understandable. The real criminals here were the members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, who chose to ignore (probably didn't read) Hurst's report.

The article and the shocking issues it raises and their ramifications are still ricocheting off the walls of my brain.

I agree that the arson investigators are not the villains of the piece - they are merely blindered pawns in the reality exposed; that "junk science" - virtual voodoo - is seated unquestionably and laying in wait in the 21st century American legal system.

It was based on the original arson investigators "evidence" that this guy was found guilty and put to death. Based on the story there was no other evidence. I can certainly see this happening considering how arrogant some "experts" become.

If this news story is telling the facts, the original investigators bear the majority of the burden (at least for his conviction) by supplying botched evidence. At least I wish someone would permanently yank their licenses.

Google news is carrying this as a news item.

I read most of the story. I am trying not to get wrapped up in the death penalty controversy.

Who of us here on CR4 have not dealt with people who applied pop science or junk science and reached wrong conclusions. It seems to me when this is the case it is usually motivated by ego or lack of dedication. When someone is indoctrinated by old platitudes instead of real science I think the chances are even higher of mistakes.

What a shame this kind of idiocy can be seen in fire investigation.

After reading the entire story, I feel that the investigators, and the pardons and paroles board should be in prison for murder along with the Governor. Hurst said that the two original investigators did not use the current views and techniques at the time of the trial. They made up outcomes to pinpoint the murder that the prosecutor and police wanted. I have always known and seen evidence that our legal system is a joke and the investigators choose who they feel is the best candidate.

I am still waiting for the day when true science rules the court room and eye witnesses don't mean anything. Eye witnesses always seem to be manipulated as to where true science can not be.

Well that is going to be hard on the legal system since technically there is only one True science, Physics, and some types of chemistry. Every other "Science" can not even be theorized properly in a scientific method, particularly since we have not developed the mathematical skills in those fields or the understanding of the mechanical systems involved to accurately express the theory in a logical language, e.g. Mathematically. So the concept of Junk Science is well a bit ambiguous, since most everything everyone talks about as science is some guys rhetoric that a majority of the people who are experts tend to believe.

Also, we must bear in mind that while you can develop a proof to demonstrate a theory in science, you can not prove a theory only disprove it. It is only accepted after the predicted theoretical outcome occurs in a number of experiments, and the majority of experts accept the theory. So in essence every scientific theory could be wrong if it is used in a realm or environment in which it is untested, and we just do not know it yet.

If someone knowingly manufactured evidence or perjured themselves they should be prosecuted. The idea of knowingly using outdated and disproved methodologies would be manufacturing evidence or perjury. However, most courts do not take much action against such people any longer, it has become n accepted practice in the court systems.