Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Kristine Bunch
Posted by: John J. Lentini, CFEI (IP Logged)
Date: August 11, 2012 04:02PM
Kristine Bunch was one of the victims of flawed fire investigation presented on the 20/20 show “Burned,” which aired first aired on May 7, 2010 and was re-run in the fall of 2011. The program is still available on the web at [abc.go.com]
Ms. Bunch was convicted of arson and murder based on the misreading of “pour patterns” in a fully involved mobile home, and the finding of heavy petroleum distillate (which makes a lousy accelerant and is part of the background of many vinyl floors).
On March 21, 2012 the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned her conviction and ordered a new trial. The decision can be found by typing the name Bunch into a search box located here:
[www.in.gov]
The State appealed the Appellate Court decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, which last week declined to intervene. Ms. Bunch has applied for bond and should be released from prison this week after serving 16 years of a 60-year sentence.
Ms. Bunch was represented by, among others, Jane Raley at the Center for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. She had pro bono expert assistance from, among others, Jamie McAllister and Doug Carpenter from CSE, Jack Malooly, John DeHaan and Richard Hansen.
The Appeals court granted a new trial for two reasons: the failure of the state to turn over the ATF Laboratory’s bench notes, which contradicted the ATF chemist’s testimony with respect to 2 samples, and new evidence, introduced by Jamie McAllister on the relationship of carboxyhemoglobin concentration to the proximity of the victim to the origin of the fire. This new evidence had to meet the following nine criteria:
(1) the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) it is material and relevant; (3) it is not cumulative; (4) it is not merely impeaching; (5) it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) the evidence is worthy of credit; (8) it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and (9) it will probably produce a different result at retrial.
The Appeals Court found that Jamie’s testimony met all of these criteria. The decision is an interesting read.
Congratulations to everyone involved.
John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]
Ms. Bunch was convicted of arson and murder based on the misreading of “pour patterns” in a fully involved mobile home, and the finding of heavy petroleum distillate (which makes a lousy accelerant and is part of the background of many vinyl floors).
On March 21, 2012 the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned her conviction and ordered a new trial. The decision can be found by typing the name Bunch into a search box located here:
[www.in.gov]
The State appealed the Appellate Court decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, which last week declined to intervene. Ms. Bunch has applied for bond and should be released from prison this week after serving 16 years of a 60-year sentence.
Ms. Bunch was represented by, among others, Jane Raley at the Center for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. She had pro bono expert assistance from, among others, Jamie McAllister and Doug Carpenter from CSE, Jack Malooly, John DeHaan and Richard Hansen.
The Appeals court granted a new trial for two reasons: the failure of the state to turn over the ATF Laboratory’s bench notes, which contradicted the ATF chemist’s testimony with respect to 2 samples, and new evidence, introduced by Jamie McAllister on the relationship of carboxyhemoglobin concentration to the proximity of the victim to the origin of the fire. This new evidence had to meet the following nine criteria:
(1) the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) it is material and relevant; (3) it is not cumulative; (4) it is not merely impeaching; (5) it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) the evidence is worthy of credit; (8) it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and (9) it will probably produce a different result at retrial.
The Appeals Court found that Jamie’s testimony met all of these criteria. The decision is an interesting read.
Congratulations to everyone involved.
John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]
Kristine Bunch Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.