Dallas Software Guy:

I'll take my text for today  from an essay by  Col. Bob Pappas, "Deceit, Lying, Easter and Freedom"

"It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that great harm results from deception and lying whether at the personal, communal or national level. Likewise “spin” is an interpretation of someone’s communication. It transforms the communication from precisely what was stated to a fallacious derivation with an underlying motive pertaining to what was stated; or in plain English: spin is a deception pertaining to a set of facts with the intention to sway opinion. We see it every day in politics or life in general, the purpose of which is to gain some advantage or avoid some undesirable outcome. Human life at every level is best when all parties deal in truth. i.e. No spin; “Let you yea be yea and your nay be nay;”  or, as the courts require, “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As one who started small, I became the purveyor of some real whoppers when it came to deception and lying. I deceived and lied in little things, medium sized things, and life-event things.  I even lied when I didn’t “have to” lie. By the time I was in my thirties, deceiving and lying were so routine and flowed so easily from my lips that they became all but indistinguishable from truth. Not that I always lied, on the professional front, when dealing with hard data, I could be as factual as anyone. But when it came to protecting my ego I made excuses that were nothing more than deception and lies whether the circumstances were personal or professional. "
http://www.gulf1.com/columns/pappas/pappasframe.htm

With that as background, now to the matter at hand .

My  major thesis is this:  It appeared to me that Perry felt somehow threatened by the Beyler Report. You may not agree. As you suggested,  people can be slow to come around to what they don't want to see. (And yes, conversely, people more readily see what the want to see.)

About a month before he appointed Bradley to the Forensic Science Commission we had this report in the Dallas Morning News, an article by Todd J. Gillman dated September 19, 2009:

    WASHINGTON – Gov. Rick Perry on Friday strenuously defended the execution of a Corsicana man whose conviction for killing his daughters in a house fire hinged on an arson finding that top experts call junk science.

    "I'm familiar with the latter-day supposed experts on the arson side of it," Perry said, making quotation marks with his fingers to underscore his skepticism."

However, those "latter-day supposed experts" were having their way with the Forensic Science Commission. Perry then appointed Bradley who did his best to put a stop to it.  They were supporting the conclusions of the Hurst report, the one that debunked the 'expert' arson testimony in the Willingham trial.but which Perry had dismissed at the time of the execution. 

You keep attempting to deflect this, saying all those courts also called it 'just another opinion' but I don't think Perry is defending the courts in this case. He's attempting to cover his own failing.  At least it's my contention that if he didn't feel guilty about it, if he had nothing to hide, he would have had no occasion to make  the changes he did

I have to admit this brought to mind another of Perry's appointments. Don McLeroy admired himself for being willing to "stand up to experts" and Perry appointed him to be chairman of the State Board of Education. I was irked to see him doing the same thing with the Forensic Science Commission.

All that said, I am very appreciative of this editorial.  I encourage the editors to keep up their good work.
Editorial: Willingham report still lacks answers to major questions

Dear Katherine,

I am a retired academic (educational psychologist), one who also worked as a consultant to the Hawaii State Department of Mental Health, Division of Courts and Corrections.

In my capacity as consultant it was my duty to interview the inmates of Oahu Prison  attendant to any significant change in their status.  I have a lot of experience with criminals

That experience, I think, contributed to my conclusion that I was 'witnessing' the behavior of a guilty man when our governor beheaded the Forensic Science Commission 18 months ago. It appeared obvious to me then that the governor felt somehow threatened by the Beyler Report.

I soon learned that the Beyler Report substantially confirmed the finding of the Hurst Report, one that had been submitted to the Board of Pardons and Parole and to the Governor prior to the execution.  Those scientifc reports essentially undermined the "expert" testimony supporting the charge and conviction of arson, thus contributed to the appearance that Texas may have executed an innocent man. The governor, it seemed to me, wanted to save face.

That pretty much explained it to my satisfaction but as I share this theory with others I am often confronted with denial and further obfuscation.  A "correspondent" in the comment section of the Houston Chronicle, one who calls himself Dallas Software Guy, has cited the two articles excerpted below:

The governor has pointed out that just before the execution, Mr. Willingham’s conviction was sustained by appellate courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court ruled that the affidavit of the defense’s arson expert, Gerald Hurst, did not exonerate Mr. Willingham, since there was other physical evidence that contrary to his claims, he had not tried to save his children.

Mr. Perry has also refused to release the memorandum from his general counsel on which he based his decision to let the execution proceed. He says the memorandum is protected by attorney-client privilege.

Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Mr. Perry, said that on the night of the execution, the governor’s general counsel thoroughly briefed him on the report of the arson expert and various appellate court decisions. He denied the reprieve, she said, because the courts “all agreed that the Hurst report was no more than an opinion and did not merit reopening the case.” [emphasis added]

Mr. Willingham’s guilt aside, the governor’s actions have left him vulnerable to accusations that he tampered with the work of a supposedly independent commission for political reasons.

I've written to McKinley questioning his sources but have as yet received no reply.

Reaves first alerted Perry about the new arson analysis three days before the execution and requested more time to develop it.

“There is nothing more I would like than to be able to present you with evidence of actual innocence,” Reaves wrote Perry, according to a document released to the Chronicle. “I think we are close … The death penalty whether you agree with it or not, should be reserved for the most serious crimes. More importantly, it should be reserved for those crimes about which there is no doubt about the guilt of the person.”

By execution day, Perry was Willingham's last chance. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected a reprieve, calling the arson expert's report “no more than an opinion.” [emphasis added]

n the days before the execution, members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles voted by fax against clemency, Reaves said. But Texas law gives governors the right to delay an execution for 30 days without board approval.

Both Jackson, the original prosecutor, and Reaves, the last defense attorney, called for the governor to release all information on his review.

“From a fairness and honesty and integrity standpoint, there are very few circumstances where these things should not be made public,” Jackson said, “and I see no reason why not in this case.”

lise.olsen@chron.com

chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6662113.html

The highlighted material makes it appear to me that the governor is attempting to avoid or diffuse responsibility that should fall squarely on his shoulders.  To others it creates the impression that the governor was simply going along with courts that had critically reviewed (and rejected) the Hurst report.  That seems impossible to me since it didn't exist, as far as I know, until just four days before the execution.

I just want to get to the truth on this matter.  I have publicly maligned the governor's character, accusing him of a cover-up. If I am wrong I own him an apology. If I am right, of course, I would like the record set straight.

At this point I simply want to know what information was released to the press concerning this matter.

Thank you for your attention.

Ian E Reid, Ph.D.

http://mail.realtime.net/blogs/church&state/