I have not outed John Dehaan, whatever that means. I simply did not really appreciate every persons name mentioned including investigators whom he wanted to point out as not doing their job, except for Dr. Dehaan. I think his work speaks for itself. I have not merely taken the word of those who say he is good at what he does, I have also investigated it myself. Nothing I can find has ever pointed to Dr. Dehaan as being anything but professional and very well recognized for being thorough. Now suddenly we have another investigator, Mr. Lentini, who says he is nothing short of a fraud, without mentioning his name. Well I think not mentioning his name is the true story behind it. You don't call someone out as being a no nothing about the field without mentioning his name, especially when his name instantly provokes respect within the community of fire investigations. As far as justice being served, let me make one thing clear, Amanda Hypes is out on bond, this case is not over. The matter is going before appeal, and as you surely know will go all the way to the supreme court no matter who wins the appeal. It's just how our legal system works. Of course the defense wins this round, and made sure to put plenty of their own "opinions" in the paper, including the JUDGE. Yeah the Judge residing over this case, before the case is even over, slanders the prosecution in the paper. Just be careful about making up your mind before knowing all the facts.

Also if you truly have viewed the reports, I give you the same offer, educate me. Tell me where the case falls through. If you have seen the documents, then you know all the work that was done by Dr. Dehaan, then I would like to hear from another experts reasons as to why the findings are at fault. I in no way want someone convicted of something they did not do, nor do I want my sons memory marred. I simply want answers, Im not attacking, I want answers. The same answers anyone would want to know. My son died, and now many experts have explained in detail on why they think it was an arson, now you say it's not. So all I want is an explanation.