Type the following phrase into any search engine and you will get 70,000 hits, mostly for an AP story that ran today all over the place, including USA Today.

Science Casts Doubt on Arson Convictions

I did not learn about the horrors that befell Mr. Lee until it was too late. He was convicted using perjured testimony (one expert claimed to have done 15,000 investigation in 20 years--working part time!) and bogus evidence in 1990. I first learned of the case in 1993 and immediately volunteered to work for Mr. Lee for free. 13 years have passed and he still rots in Stroudsburg Penitentiary, for supposedly killing his daughter.

Mr. Lee is 71 now, and I believe he will probably die in prison. His case is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but they have a vested interest in upholding convictions. I will be amazed if the Court recognizes that what we have learned about the behavior of fire in the last 15 years constitutes "new evidence."

The story can be found at my website (www.firescientist.com). It is called "A Calculated Arson." This case is the poster child for what was (and in some cases still is) wrong with "arson investigation." The alleged "experts" who testified against Mr. Lee used calculations that were in vogue in 1989. People are still making arson determinations based on more sophisticated calculations. Try averaging the McCaffrey, Babrauskas and Thomas equations for heat release rate, or run CFAST or FDS 92 times until it gives a scenario that fits.

The Lee case remains the biggest disappointment of my career. Maybe this new coverage will help, but I doubt it.

The case surely points out the need for people who are accused of arson (usually because they managed to survive a fatal fire) to have their attorneys educated by an independent expert.

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]