I appreciate your response, but I want to clarify something with you simply because you gave me an honest response with actual thought involved. The court did not rule based on any fire experts testimony. The courts ruling so far is based solely on a procedural technicality. The court ruled that testimony from the grand jury given to the expert and lead investigator, needed to be approved by the court before it was given. The same two individuals were both also sworn in and testified under the same grand jury. It is under appeal at this time. The experts findings are in no way under question thus far, at least by the court. They were however questioned in a brief statement given by the opposing expert, nothing scientific, but questioned, however it had nothing to do with the cases current status, it only amounted to fluff for the paper. Not trying to be harsh, but that is just the way it is at this point.

I would however like to know your views and why, on what you think is flawed about "my" expert. Be specific, Ive had enough of the "thats just not right" defenses. The expert Im referring to, and Im guessing you know who he is, detailed his findings in a very scientific manner involving over 13 pages. 9 different hypothesis, only one of which fit. Which from what I have learned so far, is what we can expect and hope for in a scientific fire investigation that will be used in court. Im here to learn, teach me, and be specific. Im no dummy, and I consider myself to have at least above average intelect and common sense. So I need to understand where the differences are, and why. So far I see no way out of the initial conclusion from the only expert to actually spend time examining all the evidence on a scientific level. I just wanted to know and understand why another professional, with so much to give the world, would so lightly offer an opposing opinion without even putting any time into it. Just seems kind of harsh to me. Alot is at stake.