The Fire "Experts"

Each of these alleged expert witnesses presented false scientific testimony that materially prejudiced Richey's case.

Fire Marshall Robert G. Cryer

Penetration of burn

Cryer testified that "you won't get deep penetration of burn down unless there is a flammable liquid used where there is tongue and groove or where there is [sic] cracks, and that's where it stays." Trial Tr. at 760.

According to sound scientific principles, however, the charring or burning that Cryer observed between the grooves of the patio deck floor boards could not have been caused by accelerants seeping into the cracks. Ex. 1 10(c).

Fire heat

Cryer testified that the June 30, 1986 fire must have been very rapid and hot because of the color of the ash and char he observed. Trial Tr. at 760. Once again, Cryer's testimony was contrary to sound scientific principles which establish that the color of ash and char does not indicate the intensity of a fire. Ex. 1 10(d). Furthermore, fires caused by ignitable liquids do not burn at a higher temperature than do fires involving typical home furnishings such as those in the Collins' apartment. Ex. 1 10(d).

The Smoke Detector

Smoke detector

Cryer also testified that the smoke detector in the hallway of Hope Collins' apartment had been pulled down prior to the June 30, 1986 fire, rendering it inoperable. He stated that there was no way that the heat of the fire could have caused the smoke detector to fall after the fire began. Trial Tr. at 813. Again, Cryer's testimony is false according to sound scientific principles. Ex. 1 12(e). Prof. Custer's affidavit testimony firmly establishes that the temperatures in the hallway during the fire exceeded 900°F. Ex. 1 12(e).

That is approximately three times higher than the temperature at which the plastic used for the smoke detector casing would have melted, causing the smoke detector to fall from its mounting. Ex. 1 12(e).

Conclusion

Because Cryer's testimony is false and scientifically unsound, Cryer presented false scientific testimony. The facts upon which Cryer based his opinion do not support his conclusion that the June 30, 1986 fire was caused by the use of accelerants. Indeed, the facts and sound scientific principles establish that the fire was more likely caused by the careless discard of smoking materials. Ex. 1 13.

Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory Employee Dan C. Gelfius

Gelfius testified that three samples of debris taken from the fire scene tested positive for the presence of accelerants when he ran them through a gas chromatograph:

• Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory Sample 4 revealed the presence of paint thinner;
• Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory Sample 7 revealed the presence of paint thinner; and
• Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory Sample 5 revealed the presence of gasoline. Trial Tr. at 836.

Chromatographic tests

Based upon sound scientific principles used in the forensic science community for the interpretation of gas chromatographic data, however, Richey's forensic fire expert Andrew Armstrong has conclusively determined that none of the three samples about which Gelfius testified revealed the presence of accelerants. Ex. 2 14-19.

First, Sample 4 does not contain any identifiable ignitable liquid. Ex. 2 18. Second, Sample 7 does not reveal the presence of paint thinner. Ex. 2 16. Third, Samples 4 and 7 are not the same substance. Ex. 2 19.

This is significant because Cryer testified that he would have discounted samples 5 and 7 had they not matched sample 4. Trial Tr. at 806.

Fourth, the recovery from Sample 5 is not consistent either with the gasoline standard that was used by experienced professionals in 1986, or even with the gasoline standard that the Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory used.

Conclusion

Because Gelfius' testimony is false and scientifically unsound, Gelfius presented false scientific testimony. The facts upon which Gelfius based his opinion do not support his conclusion that the three samples of debris taken from the June 30, 1986 fire tested positive for the presence of accelerants.

Defence "Expert Witness" Gregory DuBois

DuBois testified that, in forming his opinion as to whether accelerants were used in the June 30, 1986 fire, he relied upon photographs of the fire scene and the July 10, 1986 Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory Report. Trial Tr. at 821. 

Additionally, DuBois testified that he had reviewed the theory of Ohio Assistant State Fire Marshall Robert G. Cryer as to the cause and origin of the June 30, 1986 fire. Trial Tr. at 821.

The prosecution asked DuBois whether he found anything in the evidence he had reviewed that contradicted or called into question the conclusions of the July 10, 1986 Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory Report or of Cryer. Trial Tr. at 821. DuBois testified that he did not. Trial Tr. at 821.

The prosecution then asked DuBois whether he agreed with the conclusion of the July 10, 1986 Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory Report and of Cryer that accelerants were used to start the June 30, 1986 fire. Trial Tr. at 821. DuBois testified, "Based upon the available evidence, yes." Trial Tr. at 821.

Basis for testimony and conclusion

DuBois, the expert who had been retained by Richey's trial counsel, based his conclusions solely on the reports and opinions of the Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory and of Cryer, both of which were false and scientifically unsound. Therefore, DuBois presented false scientific testimony that accelerants were used to start the June 30, 1986 fire for the very same reasons that Cryer and Gelfius presented false scientific testimony.