At the Dallas Morning News's Texas Death Penalty Blog, editorial writer and death penalty opponent Rodger Jones has a note of caution for his fellow opponents:
But we haven't heard the full and undistorted story about this tortured, politically tinged case. I'm dismayed that so many people are jumping the gun on it -- assuming the worst on the part of the state and suspending all skepticism where fire expert Craig Beyler is concerned. This extends to people in the media. How can we make conclusions until we know everything that's knowable? How can we fail to question Dr. Beyler's findings as though he is the last word in these matters? Is there no range of thought within the world of science or forensics?* * *
It's interesting that people -- most disappointingly, some in the media -- don't get Beyler's bottom line. He was merciless, even sarcastic, in his assessment of the forensic work, but he didn't say the fire wasn't arson. Beyler said in his report to the commission (my emphasis added):
The investigators had poor understanding of fire science and failed to acknowledge or apply the contemporaneous understanding of the indicators of fire indicators. ... A finding of arson could not be sustained based on the standard of care expressed by NFP921 or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation texts and papers in the period 1980-92.
Didn't say it wasn't arson, folks, and didn't say it was.
The distinction between "X is not proven" and "X is disproven" is lost on a surprising, and dismaying, number of people. A commenter on the blog calling himself "no arson" writes, "Saying 'a finding of arson could not be sustained' sounds to me like saying it wasn't arson." Utterly clueless.
Doug Berman has this post at SL&P on another DMN story on the politics of the case.
Leave a comment