You know Im a little surprised at the nature of many of your comments on my request for information, you assumed I was attacking, and every one of you, except for Mr. Lentini, had no clue even what case I was referring to, but you automatically took the offense and started throwing out slandering comments because I mentioned Jonh Lentini's name. I assumed that Mr. Lentini was at least semi professional, even though he is working for who he is working for, and I guess he may not be familiar with who he is working for, and what his reputation is. Then again, maybe he does and he doesn't care. Let me ask you a question, that I have always wondered about when It comes to expert witnesses, and this is an honest question. I will NOT , or at least try not to bias my conversation on here just because of your harsh words. It's your immaturity not mine. Now for the question, when an attorney calls you to pay you for services, do you ever give them an answer they did not want to hear about a fire, and then of course they have to find another expert? Or do you just do what your paid for, and be the expert for whoever it may be, defense/prosecutor?

As far as Mr. Lentinis' response, I appreciate the response, but I think you left a few things out didn't you? I admit I don't know everything there is to know about fire investigations, of course I dont, so you can rest assured you are smarter than me in that area, but I do have the ability to learn, and I have basic common sense, and sometimes, I can only go by what is told to me, and some things that have been told to me, are quite different than what was told to you, or at least what you are telling all these people. I am also calling your bluff Mr. Lentini, I want the reports, show them to me. My address is 1802 Allison st Leesville La 71446. I will also save you the trouble of looking it up, My name is Joe Hayden and I know about the case because my Son was one of the children who died. Amanda Hypes was my ex wife. Now lets go down your response and discuss some differences of opinion, if you think you can do that without slandering me further, since you know my name now.

Firt I want to clear up one thing with the last poster, Mark Goodson who said


"For those who have neve testified before a Grand Jury, it is unnerving. There is a desire to be totally accurate, but the proceeding is one sided. Persons hear what they want to hear. They are not interested in technical explanations. More than one person questions at the same time. Throw in bias by a prosecution witness, and the ham sandwich is indicted. "

In most states you would be correct, I have family in law enforcement, and I was informed that in many cases the court will hear several of these Grand Jury indictments in one day, like as in double digits. Not in Louisiana, it took over a year for the Grand Jury to come to conclusion, you have to present the entire case, including all of your witnesses and experts, which I think John Lentini was NOT a part of at the time, "correct me if I'm wrong John". They had to present the case in the same manner they would if it were the actual hearing for guilt or innocence.

"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. "

John please explain this, you and I both know this is not true, this has been going on for 4 years, first off you come off a little smug and biased by saying it was the first time the Judge could hear "credible" evidence, and a "tainted" indictment. I understand who your employer is, but you are a professional. This Judge has only resided over this case for maybe 30 days when he made his decision, a Judge that the defense worked hard to get, like 4 years worth of worthless take of the courts time motions. You know the kind John, the motions that are intended to stall the case waiting for your opponent to hopefully make a mistake. The prosecution has been ready to try this case for a very long time.

"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 site was bulldozed sure enough. Which I can agree probably was not the best thing to do, it was not the ideal way to handle it, and I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that it was a mistake, but I'm guessing, being the professional that you are, that you know that in the light of a mistake, you have to at least attempt to adapt and over come it, if at all possible. I can only assume it is still possible to be able to come up with enough evidence to determine a possible arson, if not then basically the only thing your testimony is saying is that you have no clue if this is arson or not, you just do not think you can determine if there is or not. In the light of the bulldozed house, and limited evidence that was available, the prosecution hired and expert to not come and rule on arson, but to basically tell them if it were or not. Although there are many other factors that would lead me to believe Amanda Hypes capable of this, the investigators simply wanted to know if there was a case or not. In all honesty I wanted to know too, of course I did not want to imagine my childs mother capable of doing this. To make a long story short regarding this, they reconstructed a model of the house, based on a witnesses evidence that was in the house before, you know John, the babysitter. The one who gave her account as to what was in the house that the prosecution gave to their expert Mr. Dehaan, which the court said they should have asked before they did it, the "darn technicallity" you were referring to, yeah that sounds like someone seeking the truth doesn't it. Anyway, for those of you who don't know Amanda's husband at the time was a contractor, he built the house, and still had the plans, the expert knew exactly what was in the house, what it was made of, basically exactly what the fuel load was. Ooh technical term. Then they reconstructed the house, yeah a part of the near half million dollars spent on this case so far. They took the timeline, from eyewitnesses who saw the fire, from a 911 call that was made, and from bank records, because Amanda was going to the bank, and then from the firemen arriving on the scene. In other words, they know exactly how long it took for it to burn, and I'm pretty sure your familiar with fuel loads right John, how long would it have took for it to burn? I'm sure you have all that evidence. Correct me please, include it in the packet you are sending to me.


"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: "

Again John, you will have to correct me, as far as I know, the state did not present any witness, including their alleged scientist, Mr Dehaan, because they were not allowed to do so. So unless you have some information that I do not, then your statement that the state chose not to do it, is simply wrong. I won't call you a liar, Im just saying your wrong as per my information. The Judge made his decision because he had other things to do, and he is known to be "well" associated with the Defense attorney. The Judge states and I quote " This case does not fit into my schedule, Im getting married this summer". He said that from the bench, were you in the courtroom when he said that John?

"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.”

Was this statement an actual statement made in court, I'm curious simply because it only mentions the spalling and nothing more, of course since the prosecution didnt get to present anything further, then maybe they did say that.

"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.”

Yeah I think of heard of this little talk you had, it amounted to you throwing the ruling in the face of Mr Dehaan, as if like you had just completed a pass in the Super Bowl for a touchdown, and doing your touchdown dance. I understand this may be like a game to you, but it's not to me, it's a little more than just a rivalry between opposing experts. I have also heard the term "generally accepted" many times, and until now it was only by Mr. Dehaan. I'm assuming that books written and used to teach fire investigators would be a some sort of "general acceptance" wouldn't it. Maybe not. Does anyone else know if Mr. Dehaan knows anything about Fire investigations? Maybe he is just some guy? After having read your response, and the tone in which you presented yourself, you do sound very arrogant, and no doubt taunted Dehaan, which yes, is a leader in his field.

"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)"

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, since you are being paid for you opinion by the defense. I do know Amanda Hypes, probably better than even her parents. We were high school sweethearts, and after a brief seperation got married in 1991, and divorced in 1997. She is in my opinion bi polar. There is documentation to the effect of her severe depression, have you seen that yet Mr. Lentini? I won't say that she for sure did it, because the case has not been tried, and truly only God knows what happened, but the evidence is strong leading against her. The REAL truth is, that the ONLY way she gets off, is if the defense can prove that it wasn't arson, and you know that don't you. If arson is proved, the mountain of evidence leading to MOTIVE, and YOU KNOW what I'm talking about, will be more than enough to convict her, without ever having to see her actually strike the match. Im not here to dump this pile of Motive on this site, but since you brought it up, I will say that you are wrong and you know you are wrong about there being no motive. So stick to what you can talk about professionally , and that is fire investigation. If you haven't been given any of the case files, then that is sad indeed. Im sure you have, so lets drop it. Amanda is no dummy, she knows how to keep her mouth shut, for that matter, she probably convinced herself that she didn't do it, even if she did, yeah that is a little insite about Amanda Hypes.

"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.) "

I'm not even going to comment on the reports, but I can read what you just read, and MY smell test says your trying to lead the conversation. I can see why you are hired as an expert witness. First who else have you shown this too? You see I seek the truth, I don't want to think of Amanda doing this horrible crime, Im not so blind as to want to pin my son's death on anyone, I just do not want it brushed under the rug. If it was arson, I wont to know, and I want those responsible punished, if it wasn't arson, I want to know, so that I can go on one way or another. Secondly, the term best fit means to me, that if you look at the evidence you will have only a few scenarios to choose from about what happened, then you take all the evidence you have, like time lines, fuel loads, eye witness reports ect and determine just how the place could have been consumed the way it was. The best fit is that the fire had to have two points of origin. In case you don't realize it, oh wait I know you realize it, but in case the rest of the forum doesn't realize it, that is a lawyer canned phrase. It sounds the way it does to protect it from being misconstrued by some attorney paid to twist every word you say into something that it didn't mean. All attorneys do it, yes I know.

“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. "

Now to end this, you know who I am now, I've given you my address, and I want the reports. Anything you can send me to help a novice fire investigator determine what happened. YOu can send me all you have, I have plenty of time. Do you have anything from the doctors about her smoke inhallation injuries? I know she said she went into the house, but oh my the smoke was so thick, she just couldnt breathe, and was forced back out of the house, Im sure her injuries were extensive. Anything from the police officer who arrived on the scene first? Or how about the neighbor who tried to go in the house? Yeah John, I know plenty about the case, I'm not just some guy harrassing you. I do respect your opinion however, I truly do, but Im not willing to just accept your simple explanation that you provided thus far. I want to know the truth, above all, I want to know the truth. If you can provide a professional opinion, without the macho internet talk you have provided so far, with someone whom you know is aware in depth about the case whom you can't BS (thats bullshit), then Im willing to listen and learn. I will be awaiting your response.