This may be controversial (maybe not, I can't always tell), but here goes. I have read quite a bit about this case and agree that he may be (have been) innocent. However, if an incendiary determination was made by using junk science (as in the noted case), guilt or innocence in my opinion is irrelevant, let him/her go. It is as I said in an earlier post. You can know this guy is an arsonist with every bone in your body, but if the evidence isn't there you let it go, and you sure don't use "junk science" and the "art" of fire investigation to convict someone.

We all want to think that Mom's and Dad's would never burn their children to death, but they sometimes do. Whether this man did or not should have been irrelevant. Based on the fire report I read, the judge should have dismissed the charges based on the "Junk Science" Arson call. They did not give the death penalty to an innocent man (only one person truly knows and he is now dead) they put to death a man who was wrongfully convicted.

This is my opinion, but I've been wrong before.

Dan Hebert