This response will necessarily be long-winded. I recommend that the faint of heart find something else to do with their time.

Okay, “Dazed and Confused,” (whoever you are, I assume you are a Led Zepplin fan—“Dazed and confused for so long it’s not true”), I feel compelled to reply to your “dazed and confused” rant. Based on the tone of your post, I’m thinking you wanted a reply.

Perhaps after reading the following, you will understand the Court’s ruling, but I doubt that you have the intellectual capacity to do so, being “dazed and confused,” after all. But here goes.

We had a full day of testimony. This was the FIRST time the defendant, a real person by the name of Amanda Hypes, incarcerated for the last four years on a tainted indictment, had an opportunity to put forward any evidence in any forum. This judge was the first who heard any credible testimony.

The original investigation was indeed “botched,” and botched more badly than any I have seen. (And I have seen many botched investigations—this was a doozie.) I told the court that I was shocked that such CRAP would be put forward in 2003.

Here is a direct quote from the Sheriff’s department report (Names deleted to protect the [improperly trained]) (Names available upon off-list request)

“Deputy Fire Marshal ***** showed me locations of the spalding of the concrete. At this time Detective ***** came to the scene with a video recorder to film the areas of spalding…. Due to spalding being found on the slab, Major ***** advised me that Ray ***** (the DA investigator) advised that a search warrant would be required before completion of the search of the slab.”

I am not making this up! —this is, by the way, a death penalty case.

THEN, these intrepid investigators, after documenting ONLY the exterior of the structure, bulldozed it, to look for more evidence of “spalding.” (Did I mention that all samples collected, even those selected by Fido, inside the dwelling, were negative?)

The two judges who heard any evidence prior to this one were presented only with “prosecution” testimony. They did indeed see that the “spalding” testimony was BS (Bad Science), but the prosecutor tried to rehabilitate his botched case by presenting the testimony of an alleged SCIENTIST who used some allegedly “scientific” magic to “prove” that the fire spread “too fast” to have been caused accidentally. Included in his “scientific” analysis was the output of a CFAST program (version 6.0.0, a ‘beta’ version that predicted a temperature that increased as one moved away from the origin—do the math, or check the first law of thermodynamics—that can’t happen, but who cares, we have to support the cops). [Note: because of the physically impossible output data, we have worked with NIST to correct the ‘bug’ in the beta version]

After this alleged scientist figured out that the model wasn’t so reliable, he did some creative “hand modeling” that (surprise!) came to the same conclusion. He used the average of three wildly different models that produced three wildly different numbers (no problem! —he averaged them!). Despite the lack of any documentation, or witness observations, or ANY evidence for that matter, this fire MUST have had two points of origin.

This alleged scientist’s testimony was what convinced the Grand Jury to indict. (A side note: the alleged scientist was illegally provided with prior grand jury testimony before he testified—a minor detail, but one that caused the judge to rule the indictment tainted. Those darn technicalities!)

NOBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET claims the ability to figure out origin and cause in the absence of documentation, but this alleged scientist does. (I wish I could do that—then I wouldn’t have to actually go to scenes or even look at those tiresome photographs—the state had seven exterior photographs in this case, AND NO INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS).

This alleged scientist’s allegedly scientific report defines the “problem” as [get this]

“Determine the origin and cause in the absence of comprehensive documentation.”

What he means by that is “Do the analysis without sufficient data.” They bulldozed the site without documenting the interior! Does anyone else see a problem with that, or am I just being too fussy? (That quaint little statement “that it is more important to protect the innocent than to convict the guilty ” is really just widow dressing, right?)

“Dazed and Confused” correctly reports that I testified in a hearing on June 23, 2006 (that is, BTW, the only correct statement in his/her post). I stand by that testimony unequivocally. To the extent that “Dazed and Confused” was offended, I make no apology.

After hearing the testimony of retired ATF agent George Barnes, myself, and Douglas Carpenter, PE, (the state chose not to present any witnesses—they could have called their alleged scientists) here is what the Court said about the State’s case:

“After hearing the evidence and testimony, the Court fails to see how any evidence can point to this defendant being guilty of murder by arson when the entire house was bulldozed to the ground one day after the fire. Every shred of evidence to prove or disprove a possible crime was destroyed and placed in a pile next to the concrete slab without any documentation.

The Court believes investigators saw spalling on the concrete, and concluded the fire was intentionally set. However, the Court finds this tactic is no longer in compliance with the National Fire Protection Association 921, but merely an old wives' tale. The Court finds that proof is not evident that an arson even exists; therefore the defendant cannot be presumed guilty based on a lack of evidence that anyone is guilty of an arson, and more specifically, the defendant.”

On June 29, 2006, I told the alleged scientist TO HIS FACE that I believed his “analysis” of this case was not only wrong, but also UNETHICAL. He responded by stating that he had done the same kind of analysis in other cases previously, but was unable to name anyone else in the world (other than some FPE’s who don’t actually investigate fire scenes) capable of performing this kind of analysis. I guess “generally accepted” is a concept foreign to this alleged scientist. He is, after all, a leader in his field. He don’t need no steenking “general acceptance.”

This man is also the ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET capable of distinguishing native turpenes from added turpentine on pine boards. So, if you have a case where you need accelerant on the deck, call him.

I will tell you, “Dazed and Confused” that you are indeed dazed and confused. If you believe Amanda Hypes suddenly decided to kill her children (rather than to give them to her Mom, her husband, the State, or abandon them at the Wal-Mart, —did I mention the lack of motive?) and managed to do it in less than 10 minutes without accelerants, then managed to avoid confessing to a deputy or a jailhouse snitch for four years, you are dead wrong. (For those who did not know, this woman was held without bail from May 1, 2002 until June 28, 2006)

There is no credible evidence that the fire was set. What we have here is a TEXTBOOK case of improperly trained investigators reaching the wrong conclusion. Then when the eyewitness describes what she saw, if it does not fit with the DIVINATIONS of the investigators, she is arrested because she is lying. Most of these cases go away because regular folks can see that it doesn’t pass the “smell test.” In this case, the prosecutor found an alleged scientist to rehabilitate his botched case.

That alleged scientist failed MY smell test. And by the way, he has failed the smell test of everyone to whom I have shown his two reports. (The first report said there was accelerant OR two points of origin. The second “supplemental report” did not mention accelerants, but said that the “best fit” of the data with HIS expectations was that there were two points of origin.)

“Dazed and Confused,” please reveal your identity (if you dare), and provide me with your mailing address. I will be happy to send the state’s experts reports, including the “rehab” scientist’s reports to anyone who would like to review the facts of this case.

P.S. For those who despise “trying the case in the media,”(that means you, Doug) please note that I did not start this thread. But to let it go without a response would not have been appropriate.