Grits on the Whitmire/Bradley hearing

Posted on November 11, 2009 by Charles Kuffner

When I posted a roundup of reporting and commentary on the Senate hearing chaired by State Sen. John Whitmire to inquire with John Bradley about the status of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, Scott Henson hadn’t yet posted his thoughts. He has now done so, and it’s well worth your time to read.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Crime and Punishment and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Grits on the Whitmire/Bradley hearing

  1. Baby Snooks says:
    November 12, 2009 at 4:52 am

    Mr. Bradley was the sole witness at the hearing. He seemed to thrive in the limelight with his ego swelling more and more as his performance wore on, to the point at the end of near-open defiance toward Sen. Rodney Ellis and state Rep. Tommy Merritt, the chairman of the House Law Enforcement Committee who sat in on the hearing. In many ways, it was quite an arrogant performance – answering nothing concretely and accusing (implicitly or explicitly) anyone who disagreed with him of bias.
    ______________________________

    Still the “special treat” although he’s mellowed somewhat. In the end, John will have his way. Always has, always will. He’s from Houston in case you didn’t know. Some of us remember him fondly. Sort of. Kind of. Well, we try to.

    Everyone does realize this report everyone is so interested in doesn’t say it wasn’t arson I hope. One of the things that seems to have slipped by everyone. The report questions the science. Not whether it was arson or not. It does not declare Willingham innocent.

    Quite scary to think about but I do agree with John about the Innocence Project. Barry Scheck should have stuck with having guilty people found innocent. Although in this case, that seems to be what he’s doing. Again. “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” That sums up Barry Scheck. And everyone with the Innocence Project. It’s about agenda. Not about justice.

Comments are closed.