The Fire Investigation

Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory

Cryer based his testimony on his analysis of alleged pour and burn patterns, and on test results supplied by the Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory that allegedly showed evidence of accelerants on debris from the Collins' living room and deck. Trial Tr. at 760, 784, 806.

Cryer's testimony on accelerants was echoed by Dan C. Gelfius of the Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory and L. Gregory DuBois, the expert originally retained by Richey -- both of whom relied on the accuracy of the test results of the Ohio Arson Crime Laboratory. Trial Tr. at 821, 836.

This was the only scientific evidence of arson presented at trial.

Tests challenged

Richey presented newly discovered scientific evidence ? in the form of affidavits of Richard L. P. Custer, a nationally recognized fire investigator, and Andrew T. Armstrong, Ph.D., a Certified Professional Chemist specializing in forensic science and the testing, detection, and identification of flammable liquids in fire debris ? that he was convicted on the basis of demonstrably false and scientifically unsupportable testimony by Cryer, Gelfius, and DuBois.

Cryer testified at trial that he had three reasons for believing that the arson caused the fire:

1. the "pour" [burn] patterns he observed on the living room floor and patio deck,
2. the evidence of burning in the cracks between the boards of the balcony, and
3. the quick, intense nature of the fire. Trial Tr. at 760.

Richard Custer's affidavit, submitted herewith as Exhibit 1, establishes that, according to sound scientific principles, none of the physical evidence relied upon by Cryer is in fact evidence of arson. Ex. 1 8, 10.

Indeed, Custer concludes that, not only was there no evidence supporting a finding of arson, the evidence actually supported a conclusion that the most likely cause of the fire was the careless discard of smoking materials. Ex. 1 13.

What is a "Burn Pattern"?

Not much of anything if you review the literature.

We recently ran about fifty test burns in a confined area using newspaper on carpet, furniture burning on carpets, and liquid accelerant.

The burn patterns much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In short they are often a form of art and do not meet any of the standards that use the word "science".

http://www.arson-codes.com/nl1/nl1.htm

Example of the Ease of Mistakes in Fire Investigations

To complicate matters, the laboratory that was used by the fire investigators contracted by the insurance carrier failed to comply to standards of the ASTM. This left some serious questions about the accuracy of their results on even the one positive sample. A study of the Gas Chromatograph results indicated some serious flaws in the procedures used. In the end the lab samples were not even a part of the evidence presented to the court jury.

Flashover

By dismissing flashover as an event in the fire it became easier to convince a jury the court that the burn patterns were "low burns". The problem in such an analysis is that if you do not take flashover into consideration you can become side tracked. In addition, the fire investigators said that they did not need to take airflow or current movement into consideration in their evaluation. This is clearly wrong.

Amounts needed for "pour pattern"

Evidence outside the record, however, demonstrates that Cryer's conclusions are false and scientifically unsupportable. First, Cryer testified that, based on the size of the "pour" patterns he observed at the scene, approximately one quart of accelerant would have been needed to start the fire. Trial Tr. at 809. Based upon sound scientific principles ignored by Cryer, however, Professor Custer demonstrates in his affidavit that more than ten gallons of accelerants would have been required to create a "pour" pattern of the size that Cryer allegedly observed. Ex. 1 10(b).