I thought then, since JB wasn't so inclined, I'd take a stab at guessing some of Bradley's likely answers, at least if one were to catch him in a particularly candid mood (Rodger's questions are in italics):
1. Your handling of the Cameron Todd Willingham case has been faulted as heavy-handed and politically motivated. What do you say to your critics?What a friggin disgrace for a public official to refuse to answer questions on the grounds that a reporter from Dallas sounds like a "New York lawyer." Going forward, as he seeks answers directly from the source, perhaps Jones should add one more question to his list, echoing the prince in Shakespeare's Henry IV to inquire, "What trick, what device, what starting-hole canst thou now find out to hide thee from this open and apparent shame?"
JB: You say "heavy-handed," I say "dictatorial." But let's not mince words: I'm doing the job the Governor brought me in to do.
2. Draft recommendations to the Texas Forensic Science Commission appear to have reached a foregone conclusion of no negligence by arson investigators in the Willingham case. Will the final report go beyond this finding?
JB: Yes, I'm pushing the commission to enact a "good intentions" standard where, so long as the expert witness believes the testimony they're giving, it will still be admissible in court even if it contradicts basic scientific tenets. I believe such a change would put this whole arson issue to bed once and for all.
3. The law says the commission's final report on a negligence case must address "corrective action required by the laboratory, facility or entity" involved. Is the commission obligated to assess whether the State Fire Marshal's Office has upgraded standards?
4. The recommendations clear Willingham investigators of negligence because they used forensic techniques accepted at the time. Yet the commission's paid expert said investigators didn't meet even that standard. How do you square the two?
JB: It's simple, really. When experts say things you don't like, you ignore them and make up findings to say whatever you want. You non-lawyers wouldn't understand but we do it all the time in court.
5. Experts say hundreds of arson defendants have been convicted based on similarly outmoded standards. How should the commission or state fire marshal address that claim?
JB: With smirks, sarcasm and derision. As far as I'm concerned, if they were convicted, they're guilty. Post-conviction exonerations are for pussies.
6. Why did the committee of four commissioners working on the Willingham case meet in private? Shouldn't the public be aware of factors that members weighed in recommending no negligence?
JB: Duh! Because if we meet in secret we can't be held accountable for anything we say or do. Are you new?
7. Will the committee draft the final report in public?
JB: There will be a final report released at some point in the future - an extremely distant point. I intend to provide instructions regarding its release in my last will and testament, and historians can see it after I pass.
8. What is your opinion of the role of Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project of New York in the Willingham case?
JB: Are you kidding? I despise that truculent little gnome. For that matter, I don't think too highly of you, either.
Relatedly, here's a bit more coverage on latest from the FSC: