Today, we learned about more misbehavior by John Bradley. He tried to interfere with a legislative hearing held Jan 11 by the Chair of the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.
As we said yesterday, John Bradley “should be removed as chair of the Texas Commission on Forensic Science. He has proven by his handling of the first meeting that his main goal was to cover-up and impede the investigation into whether Texas relied on faulty arson evidence to execute a person who did not kill anyone”.
As reported by Gary Scharrer in The Houston Chronicle:
Gallego had a committee hearing on Jan. 11 to focus on rules of evidence. He invited Beyler to testify.
In a Jan. 26 letter, Beyler told Gallego: “Mr. Bradley…. asked me not to appear before your committee. He was apparently concerned about your motives in inviting me and was very concerned that you wished to do the Commission harm.”
“I was not at all convinced by his concerns and decided to come to Austin. As it turns out, his fears were wholly without merit. I very much appreciated that the committee members did not ask questions about the pending TFSC work,” Beyler wrote in the letter to Gallego.
The veteran lawmaker said it’s its improper to tell witnesses not to show up for a hearing.
“I’m really disappointed that he (John Bradley) would attempt to interfere in a legislative hearing in that fashion,” Gallego said.
But Bradley, the district attorney in Williamson County, say he simply told Beyler “that his status as an expert in a case pending before the Forensic Science Commission made it potentially a conflict to serve as a witness in a hearing related to such matters before the conclusion of an investigation.”
“Mr. Beyler had already damaged his reputation for impartiality by publicly commenting on the recent appointment of new commissioners. By entering the political arena, he gave ammunition to those people who might question his impartiality,” Bradley said. “Having heard Mr. Beyler’s presentation to the House Committee, it appears that he wisely edited his remarks to avoid further damaging his reputation. No one prevented him from testifying. It is naive to think that his invitation was unrelated to his work for the commission.”
But Gallego said: “Our hearing was about the rules of evidence, and we told everybody that up front. There was no effort on my part to talk about anything else. If those cases came up by name, they came up peripherally.”