I was curious about a case that John Lentini was the expert witness for recently. He testified that it was the most botched fire investigation he had ever seen. I was curious simply because this case had been reviewed by a Grand Jury for over a year and they ruled it sufficient evidence to not only justify a trial, but to justify arresting the suspect to be held without bond. Now 4 years later, and with less than 30 days on the bench for the new judge residing over the case, the Judge saw fit to throw the case out. What was it exactly that that You "John Lentini" saw that all the other fire investigators didn't see, and the other 2 Judges prior to the present Judge didn't see? Including all the investigators who had their experts construct models of the house and said there was no way the house could have burned down as quickly as it did without some sort of outside fuel source added to the mix. Not to mention the dogs the fire department had which hit in multiple spots around and inside the house. I mean I could understand maybe if you could not reason with the thought of the accused as being responsible, but I'm a little confused as to how suddenly this doesn't seem to be an arson case. The reason Im asking is because there were 3 children involved, which didn't survive the fire, they were left alone in the house and it burned down within a matter of minutes. This case has been around for a few years, and it seemed the defense never had anything substantial to add to the case, and now suddenly, the accused is walking free, with a quote from Mr. Lentini talking about how botched the case was. I'm curious as to what he saw that others did not, and if it was enough to justify saying there was no arson at all committed, which so much at stake, meaning 3 childrens lives. Don't mean to sound abrasive, just curious and want to learn more if there is something to learn. I hate to think of our justice system being ruled by money and politics