Willis and Willingham: Investigator Qualifications Questioned
This is the second of four columns intended to shine the spotlight on two cases, Willingham and Willis, and urge those charged with investigating similar cases in the future to be exceedingly well prepared and able to defend their findings.
The April 15, 2011, Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC) report reviews fire investigators Manuel Vasquez and Douglas Fogg in relationship to the State of Texas vs. Cameron Todd Willingham case. (Willingham was put to death by lethal injection in 2004 for his involvement in a Dec. 23, 1991, fire that resulted in fatalities.) My goal is to highlight areas on which the TFSC focused, in the hope that we as fire investigators can, by thoroughly educating ourselves and copiously preparing, preempt our future cases from being disparaged. This is my personal interpretation and review of the portions of the more than 800-page TFSC report on which the reviewers focused; this report, I believe, provides an opportunity for all fire investigators to learn and improve.
Trial testimony of Manuel Vasquez
In the “Review of Testimony & Reports” portion of the document, after listing Vasquez’s credentials, the report includes testimony from the trial transcript on page 227, line 24. Vasquez was asked, “How many fires have you investigated since becoming certified? How many fires turned out to be arson? How many, based on your experience, arsons resulted in injury or death?” The TFSC then goes on to cite all the known credible, reliable sources of statistics: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; National Fire Protection Association; U.S. Fire Administration and then the investigators’ own agency statistics. All of these statistics are attainable through statistical data systems. This data is then used in retrospect to validate statements made by Vasquez.
On page 8 of the TFSC report, Vasquez’s testimony (page 238) is cited. In his testimony, using a photograph labeled Exhibit #27, he explains the interpretation of the pour patterns in what seems to be the room where a flashover occurred. In his testimony, he also identifies an area of low burn as an origin of fire because it’s the lowest part of the fire.
The review committee then goes on to identify how and when a fire occurs within a compartment fire and known scientific behavior in such compartment fires. Also, significant to this compartment, the review committee defines flashover and the conditions caused by flashover. Further explained in the report is the post-flashover event, in which the entire volume of the room compartment is filled with flames, and any unburned fuel produced can be burned at ventilation openings where fuel can mix with air. This process is sufficient to consume and burn floors, ceilings and walls.
The report then turns back to the Vasquez testimony, noting that any investigator should be able to differentiate between characteristics of floor patterns that were the result of actual pour patterns caused by flammable or combustible liquids, rather than a fully involved compartment fire where no such fuels were used.
The review committee cites three credible scientific studies that discount the use of pour patterns on floors within a compartment or room where flashover has occurred. Two of these studies were conducted by Putoiti, A.D., “Flammable and Combustible Liquid Spill/Burn Patterns,” March 2001 and “Full Scale Room Burn Pattern Study,” December 1997, both published by the National Institute for Justice. Also cited was Shanley, J.H., “Report of the United States Fire Administration Program for the Study of Fire Patterns,” July 26, 1997, published by the Federal Emergency Management Administration, United States Fire Administration.
The review committee continues to evaluate Vasquez’s testimony in reference to the condition of burned bed springs, his process of interpretation of fire progression, the condition of aluminum thresholds, his interpretation of multiple areas of origin, fire ventilation characteristics, and glass breakage caused by fire.
Trial testimony of Douglas Fogg
The report stated that Douglas Fogg’s only qualification for testifying was the fact that he has been the assistant fire chief in Corsicana, TX, where he worked for over 22 years.
The TFSC reviewers zero in on Fogg’s testimony of low burn configurations on the floor that were described as “puddling” and pour patterns of what he considered as pour patterns of a liquid fire accelerant. He opined about eliminating electrical fire causes and the burn patterns at the threshold in the State’s Exhibit #8 photograph. Fogg also testified as to how he interpreted fire behavior at thresholds in a photo identified as Exhibit #6.
The reviewers acknowledged that it was widely thought that “puddle shapes” and “liquid-type” patterns were unequivocal evidence of accelerants in 1992 when NFPA 921 was first issued. They also stated that, by 2004, it was well known and generally accepted in the fire investigation community that patterns like these were now known to be misinterpreted within fully involved compartment fires, and that only positive lab results can credibly identify flammable liquid-induced fire patterns.
Investigator qualifications
To quote directly from the report, “Manuel Vasquez was a Deputy State Fire Marshal who was the lead expert witness in the case against Cameron Todd Willingham. After eight years of service in the Army, Mr. Vasquez worked for the Grand Prairie Fire Department for thirteen years, spent three years with the Dallas County Fire Marshal’s Office, seven years as the Fire Marshal for the City of Lancaster, and seven years with the Texas State Fire Marshal’s Office.”
It can’t be denied that Vasquez had a 20-year background in fire service investigation. And ironic as it seems, his investigation was systematically evaluated, based on updated scientific knowledge of the fire investigation field. Even though many of the scientific arguments used were available, his understanding was refuted, in some cases by information available at the time and more current scientific facts of his investigation and simple statistical knowledge.
One doesn’t need to dig very deep to find some of the same sort of evaluations going on right now in areas of, for instance, forensic bite-mark evidence and forensic hair evidence. Regardless of the specific area of investigation, our challenge is to be so well prepared as to avoid giving anecdotal information that may turn out to be less than accurate.
It is my belief that it is extremely important for us as fire investigators to continue to question common assumptions and get involved in actual training that involves experimentation. The precedent has been set, and we needn’t search long to find the justification.
Collin County Fire & Arson Investigators Association, which I have the honor of heading up, is sponsoring the fourth annual fire death investigation course later this year. Held in conjunction with Eastern Kentucky University, Sam Houston State University and the Texas State Fire Marshal’s Office, it is slated for Sept. 26–30, 2016, at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, TX. To participate, download the packet at http://tinyurl.com/oeb2ys9 or contact me at [email protected].
STEVE SEDDIG has been a member of Wylie, TX, Fire Rescue since 1994 where he currently serves as fire marshal and division chief. He is the elected president of the Collin County Fire & Arson Investigators Association and was instrumental in bringing to Texas one of only two fire death investigation courses in the country that uses human case studies. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Emergency Administration from the University of North Texas in Denton, an Associate of Applied Science—Fire Science from Collin College in Plano, TX, and Associate of Applied Science—Law Enforcement Technology from Rio Salado College in Tempe, AZ.
