music and labor 0ct 6 2024

In the scene when Steve first meets King, we see Steve taking photos and videos of his friends

when King takes notice of him doing that while playing basketball. King tells Steve to come over

and photograph him. While talking to him King mentions a movie involving photography and

mentions the clicking camera sound with the motion of a finger gun inching closer to Steve’s

face while making clicking noises, making Steve look nervous, but trying not to show it. Then

King asks Steve if he has seen a real gun before and asks how he expects to pursue photography

as a career like in his favorite movie if he’s never even seen a gun flash before and then says

that’s why Steve should be ‘rolling’ with him, insinuating that gun flash is something he’d see

often if he was friends with King. This scene alone immediately foreshadows that getting in with

King would bring Steve trouble in the future and he was really not the type of person Steve

should have been spending his time with, plus King probably had something in negative

connotation planned. This scene alone shows us how easily involved Steve got with the wrong

crowd and how one interaction led him being involved in such a heinous crime. We can also see

how casual it was for King to bring someone into that kind of life and how easily someone might

have brought King into it as well. Overall just how easily the ‘streets’ can change an innocent

person into a criminal. So although the court system didn’t take it easy on Steve, he was

unfortunately there when the crime took place and there is no denying that. And though they

hardly tried to hear Steve’s side of the story, it is really being on the wrong side of town and one

interaction with the wrong person that changed the trajectory of his life.

Try it together: “Death by Fire,” Charcoal Accelerant

The first inspectors find a can of charcoal accelerant under the porch. In the trial, they

have a fire expert point to this as proof that Todd used this to set the fire. However, when

the second fire expert looks at the evidence years later, he says, “ Of course, there was

charcoal accelerate, it was right next to a barbecue.”

Sam: It shows that there was a faulty investigation and the inspectors did not thoroughly

examine the scene or use their common sense to tell that there was a grill next to the can. And

they also had mistaken the burn.

Ashley: Thus, we witness how forensic testimony can clash between experts. The difference

between the first inspectors (the firemen) and the second fire expert is based on their occupations

and knowledge on the subject. While they’re both considered experts in the eyes of the court, the

second fire expert makes the case that the first inspectors misconstrued pieces of evidence (such

as the charcoal accelerate, and the combustion patterns) that ultimately put an innocent man to

death.

Brody: In the film, it is explained that, “firemen are not scientists.” This shows how firemen are

not arson experts. They mistake the burn patterns to be a pour, but it was just a certain type of

fire that burned that way. Testimony among experts in forensic sciences can cause breaks in

evidence, and thus, punishing or even killing an innocent man.

Reina: This shows how we can’t entirely trust what these ‘experts’ tell us are facts. The

forensics of fire was still not established during Todd’s case but they still insisted saying that the

fire was not an accident and using the proof of the fire pattern as an example of it being a pour.

But, as the science of fire began to be more stable, these actual scientists later learned how the

fire was an accident and the fire pattern was caused by the accident. It also explains why Todd’s

feet were not burned from trying to save his kids, it was because the fire had started from the

wall and not from the floor

Kay: This highlights the necessity of cross-examinations for all cases. Had a second or

even third fire expert been added to the case, evidence portraying Todd’s innocence

would’ve come to light earlier, potentially saving Todd’s life. Incorrect analysis in cases

leads to prolonging of trials, furthered punishments, and gilded prosecutions. Ultimately,

this could’ve been avoided through peer-reviewing.

Max: This example proves how experts aren’t always 100% correct and they often make mistakes that turn innocent people guilty. It also shows that “experts” aren’t always really experts because in this case it was firefighters that were the “experts” that made the mistake. Experts can also have contrasting opinions which will make a case confusing.

Ava: The differing levels of expertice caused differing opinions and evidence. I think that this should be avoided in a court because in order to fairly convict a suspect you need facts not guesses. With varying levels of knowledge about the fire and charcoal accelerant there came confusion which messed with the idea of whether or not Todd was guilty. With confusion like this or to this extent, you start to wonder who really are the “experts” and can they be trusted?

Evan Stockdale: This proves that those firemen, not fire scientists mistaked all 20 indicators of Arson in that house because they were not looking to clear Willinghams name. The firemen wanted to prove he was guilty. A thorough inspection and examination of the crime was not performed and shows how forensic evidence can be misconstrued and spun in a way that favors the defendant. A barbeque was not mentioned in the initial report.

Kevin: This example shows that the evidence provided wasn’t thoroughly investigated and analyzed possibly painting the defendant guilty. The “experts” revision of the evidence shows some sense of fault within the case as he may have felt off about the outcome. Also, this is a key aspect to take into consideration so it is shocking that this finding was made years later.

Brayden: This shows that the firemen who were there that day weren’t qualified to make a scientific analysis on the cause of the fire as well as the patterns shown from the fire because they don’t have the knowledge and expertise in that area to make that conclusion. The

firefighters looked with just their eyes but in reality it took fire scientists to actually look into it and find the true cause of how this could have started.

Molly: The example shows that even though people are considered experts, what they are saying is not always true. This can prove that in court the defendants can be wrongfully convicted. This is important because it was proven in this case and finding out the truth later on.

Ronon: Based on the summary, it shows that the first fire expert didn’t seem to thoroughly search for or think about other factors that could’ve possibly pointed out that the fire could’ve been an accident. It might show that the first fire expert could’ve either been somewhat inexperienced or biased against Todd as it would be a bit hard to believe in this day and age for someone investigating a case to completely rule out factors without having a full understanding of the situation or even having all the evidence; the second fire expert proves this as he points out that there was a barbeque nearby, which the first fire expert failed to realize or even mention.

Saim: This paragraph shows how evidence can be shaped by context. The first expert uses its presence to suggest Todd set the fire, while the second point shows it was near a barbecue offering a non criminal explanation. This highlights the risk of forensic science, where evidence may be selectively framed to fit a narrative.

Johansi→ This illustrates that the first fireman who saw the charcoal accelerant as

definite proof of arson, didn't look at the barbeque that was next to the accelerant. The

second fire expert suggested a more legitimate excuse (the bbq) instead of criminal

intent. This also shows how evidence can be interpreted differently based on who is

doing the analysis, like their history, experience, and biases they may have. Evidence

can be shaped by the perspectives of those analyzing it.

Saneika: This example shows how evidence can be twisted to go against a person in court. Although there was physical evidence of an accelerator can, that is not enough evidence to show that it was directly involved in the fire. The first fire “experts” did not state the fact that there was a barbecue nearby in which the accelerator could have been used. These firefighters were clearly looking for evidence to prove Todd guilty and not evidence for the cause of the fire.

Myles: This is a perfect example showing us that not all professional evidence can be trusted when it comes to investigating these cases. Especially if you have people that are from the same town that hates you come over and investigate, things are not always going to look good for you. The evidence was against him from the start. It’s safer to have multiple sources come and help especially when the evidence is not strong enough to convict somebody. The second investigators we more experienced than the first one’s but the first investigators could have also been biased.

Taksh: This talks about an incident in relation to law enforcement or an investigation, it likely has

to do with a fire that was possibly started on for a reason.

Under the porch, the first inspectors find a can of charcoal accelerant. This seems to be

evidence that Todd, a suspect, may have used the accelerant to start the fire.

To back up this argument during the trial, a fire expert was called around. This expert is

probably going to provide evidence that the accelerant's presence fits in with burning or

deliberate fire starting, which could put Todd in trouble.