Main Menu
Home Kenny Richey The Case The Flaws in the State's Theory The Flaws in the State's Theory
Wednesday, 21 April 2004
The petrol and thinner cans
The claim that Kenny broke into the greenhouse and stole cans of petrol and then climbed into the flat is flawed from the start.
 Note the shed and the balcony |
The greenhouse owner testified that, to the best of his knowledge, no cans were missing from his greenhouse. Moreover, no empty cans were ever discovered anywhere near or around the apartment complex.
The shed
The second problem with the prosecution's theory arises when you consider the shed that Kenny was supposed to have climbed upon to gain access to Hope's balcony. Kenny broke his hand a week earlier, and it was in a cast. He was also so drunk a witness saw him collapse in bushes.
- It would be unrealistic rational for any learned person to think Kenny climbed onto this sharp-angled & slanted roof (it was alleged he climbed the shed drunk & disabled - with a 5 gallon gas can (petrol tin), & 1 tin of paint-thinner), keeping the cans and himself balanced whilst drunk, then crossing the approximate 153cm (5ft) space (between the shed and the balcony) - onto the balcony whilst intoxicated, one hand disabled, and doing so without making a sound.
- Examination of the Shed Roof to Balcony ratio (space between the two) is approximately 153cm (5ft)Examination shows a distance of approximately 153cm (5ft) between the Shed Roof and the Balcony, and the spacing of the Balcony banisters, is approximately 10cm (4").
- When he allegedly got to the Balcony, how did he fit these alleged 3 items through a 10cm (4") space? Take a look next time at a 5-gallon gas can. A paint-thinner can. Could you get - from a 45 degree angle, stretched across an approximate 153cm (5ft) space - these 3 items squeezed through a 10cm (4") space? With one hand balancing yourself, so you do not fall, and the other hand disabled and unable to maneuver?
- It was a hot, humid night, and the bedroom window of Kenny's ex-girlfriend was only 5ft from the shed, it had been left open. The young woman and her new boyfriend, both of whom stated they were light sleepers, heard no sound.
 The test on Kenny's belongings |
Spreading accelerants
Inside the living room, the flaws of the prosecution's theory persist.
Basinger claimed that Kenny "splashed" flammables over the carpet.
However, the Police took Kenny's trousers and boots and the State Forensic Lab tested them. No traces of flammables were found on the trousers or on the boots - not even a speck. Even a sober person would find it impossible to splash petrol and paint thinner around a room without leaving a single trace on their attire.
Flaws in the State's Motive
The prosecution's theory that Kenny started the fire to burn his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend in the flat below makes little sense. Kenny lived with his father in the apartment complex, and he would know that the flats had concrete floors. Fire cannot pass through concrete. Even if the floors were made of wood, fire burns up faster than it burns down, and any fool would know that the fire would be reported before it could possibly torch the flat below.
Additionally, as Kenny's ex-girlfriend testified, she opened her window that hot night. If Kenny wanted to harm her, he could have easily achieved this by throwing a can or bottle of petrol with a burning wick into her room.