Bulletin: Massachusetts: Reliability of alcohol breath testing machines: Lawyers representing more than 500 defendants have asked the state’s highest court to intervene in a case that challenges the reliability of alcohol breath testing machines used across Massachusetts..."The defendants argue evidence produced by the breath-analysis machines is not scientifically sound."..."As many as 1,000 drunk driving cases have been stayed pending a hearing on the issue, which is being heard by Judge Robert A. Brennan. Brennan, who sits in Salem District Court, previously agreed to allow a defense expert to review the machine's source code. However, defense lawyers say their expert balked when the German manufacturer, Draeger Safety Diagnostics, asked him to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which they described as vague and overly restrictive, placing their expert in potential legal jeopardy. “It really exposed the expert to litigation throughout the United States and Germany,” lawyer Gregory Oberhauser said last month, explaining it contained “loose” definitions of confidential information, breaches and other legally sensitive concepts." Milford Daily News.

"Lawyers representing more than 500 defendants have asked the state’s highest court to intervene in a case that challenges the reliability of alcohol breath testing machines used across Massachusetts. Hundreds of accused drunk drivers have joined a consolidated case being heard in Concord District Court. The defendants argue evidence produced by the breath-analysis machines is not scientifically sound.........Lawyers are also challenging a protective order that spells out the terms under which an expert hired by the defendants will be allowed to review the computer software that powers the machines. The defense team argues it has been unable to find an expert willing to abide by the order, which includes safeguards to protect the manufacturer's proprietary computer code. “We are trying to protect the interest of the consolidated class, the group of breath test defendants, which is hundreds of people,” said Michael S. Bowser, one of five lawyers representing the defendants. “By going up to the single justice, we’re seeking a more transparent hearing process in terms of additional discovery, the use of an expert of our choice who’s not restricted by the court’s protective order, and hopefully just a fuller, more fair, hearing process.” The instrument at issue in the case, the Draeger Alcotest 9510, has been used by police departments across Massachusetts since 2011. Legal challenges began mounting against the device last year after the state Executive Office of Public Safety and Security disclosed the machines were never programmed with the correct tolerance settings when the state purchased them. Public safety officials maintain there is no evidence the devices were malfunctioning, and that police using the machines should have caught any tolerance problems. Nevertheless, the revelation led a slew of defendants to argue the evidence produced by the machines is invalid. As many as 1,000 drunk driving cases have been stayed pending a hearing on the issue, which is being heard by Judge Robert A. Brennan. Brennan, who sits in Salem District Court, previously agreed to allow a defense expert to review the machine's source code. However, defense lawyers say their expert balked when the German manufacturer, Draeger Safety Diagnostics, asked him to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which they described as vague and overly restrictive, placing their expert in potential legal jeopardy. “It really exposed the expert to litigation throughout the United States and Germany,” lawyer Gregory Oberhauser said last month, explaining it contained “loose” definitions of confidential information, breaches and other legally sensitive concepts." http://www.milforddailynews.com/article/20160324/NEWS/160327158

Curtis Lovelace: Illinois: Second trial for former football star set to begin on July 25th hinges on a pivotal question: Is Curtis Lovelace responsible for his wife's untimely death - or, as the defence contends, did no crime occur because she died of natural causes from health problems caused by chronic alcoholism and bulimia. "Dr. Michael Baden, a pathologist with a national reputation, testified that it is his opinion Cory Lovelace died from suffocation with a pillow. But Dr. Shaku Teas, a forensic pathologist from the Chicago area who initially was contacted in March 2014 by police during the reinvestigation, said it's her opinion no crime occurred. "There is no (criminal) case here," Dr. Teas said, indicating that she would have found that Cory Lovelace died from chronic alcoholism."

STORY:  "More questions than answers," by reporter Jim Dey, published by the News-Gazette on March 24, 2016.

PHOTO CAPTION: Curtis Lovelace...is escorted by sheriff's deputies in January to a courtroom for jury selection in his first-degree murder trial at the Adams County Courthouse in Quincy, Ill. Lovelace returned to court Friday, March 18, 2016, where a new trial date of July 25, 2016, was set for the former Quincy prosecutor who is facing a second murder trial in his wife's 2006 Valentine's Day death.  

   

GIST: "Round II of Quincy's Trial of the Century is scheduled to begin July 25, when former University of Illinois football star Curt Lovelace faces a second trial for the alleged 2006 murder of his wife, Cory Lovelace. Lovelace's first trial, which lasted two weeks, ended in a mistrial Feb. 5 after jurors were unable to reach a verdict. The mystery surrounding the death of 38-year-old Cory Lovelace is dual in nature. While prosecutors try to prove that Curt Lovelace is responsible for his wife's untimely death, the defense contends that no crime occurred. They assert that Cory Lovelace died of natural causes from health problems caused by chronic alcoholism and bulimia. Rich Herr, a local businessman and former Illini football teammate of Curt Lovelace, is among those who contend that Cory Lovelace died of natural causes. He said that he had long been concerned about her health. "We all knew how sick she was. We weren't shocked that she died, but we weren't surprised either," he said. Herr, who described himself and Lovelace — both linemen on Illini teams from the late '80s and early '90s — as friends "since forever," could be accused of bias. But UI law Professor Steve Beckett characterized the case as shot through with reasonable doubt, so much so that he's scheduled an April 29 symposium on the case at the UI College of Law. "It's a really interesting case," said Beckett, one that features "competing death experts" but also compelling fact witnesses. Key witnesses include three of the four Lovelace children, who told authorities they saw and spoke with their mother not long before her body was found upstairs in bed on the morning of Feb. 14, 2006 — Valentine's Day. They were 10, 9 and 8 at the time. A fourth was too young to be interviewed. Their testimony is critical because the prosecution is relying on medical testimony that Cory Lovelace was suffocated by her husband about 12 hours before her body was found. If the children's testimony is correct, the prosecution has no case. While his future hangs in the balance, Lovelace remains in custody at the Hancock County jail, where he's been held since his arrest on Aug. 27, 2014. He was indicted by an Adams County grand jury the same day following a reinvestigation of the case by a recently promoted patrol officer, Detective Adam Gibson.......... Although both sides will present their own medical experts to testify, there will never be any definitive finding as to Cory Lovelace's cause of death. At her mother's request, her body was cremated.The original autopsy, conducted by Dr. Jessica Bowman, found no specific cause of death, ruling it undetermined. She also reported that Cory Lovelace had a significantly enlarged liver, roughly twice the normal size. The condition of the body when observed by police is a matter of significant dispute. Employees of the coroner's office reported seeing significant rigor mortis, suggesting she had been dead for a number of hours. But one police officer reported the body felt warm to the touch. St. Louis Dr. Janet Turner, who reviewed medical records during the reinvestigation, said the rigor mortis she observed, which included the deceased's hands in a frozen position above her chest, proved Cory Lovelace died, probably from suffocation, 12 hours before her body was found. "I suppose a pillow was used to suffocate her," Dr. Turner said. But a defense witness, Dr. George Nichols, said he found "no proof the woman was murdered." He down-played the rigor mortis question because he said it "does not occur at a fixed time," varying from person to person. He also said it's impossible to reach any conclusion beyond that because the tests necessary to do so weren't conducted at the autopsy and the body is no longer available. Dr. Michael Baden, a pathologist with a national reputation, testified that it is his opinion Cory Lovelace died from suffocation with a pillow. But Dr. Shaku Teas, a forensic pathologist from the Chicago area who initially was contacted in March 2014 by police during the reinvestigation, said it's her opinion no crime occurred. "There is no (criminal) case here," Dr. Teas said, indicating that she would have found that Cory Lovelace died from chronic alcoholism. Given those conflicting assessments, the children's testimony that they saw their mother that morning — if believed — turns the case. That's why the CBS News Show "48 Hours" titled its segment on the Lovelace case "What Did the Children See?" Beckett said, in his view, what the Lovelace children told police is dispositive. "Would you remember the last time you saw your mom or dad before they died?" he asked. "All three kids immediately told authorities their mom was alive before they went to school."

The entire story can be found at: 

http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/columns/2016-03-24/jim-dey-more-questions-answers.html

See CBS 48 Hours documentary on this case: "What did the children see," at the link below." "Detective Gibson kept investigating the old case secretly, out of the public eye. He consulted the original pathologist, Dr. Jessica Bowman, who had ruled the death "undetermined." Bowman told Gibson she would no longer participate in the case, but sent him for another opinion to another pathologist she knew in Chicago, Dr. Shaku Teas. "She said basically that she saw nothing suspicious about the death," Det. Gibson said of Dr. Tea's ruling. "So why wasn't that the end of it for you? I mean, you have Dr. Bowman who says undetermined, you have now Dr. Shaku Teas, who is accredited and is telling you, 'look it's undetermined, I don't see a problem with it,'" Maher asked the detective. "Because I didn't believe that the information that Dr. Teas had given was credible to what I already knew," he replied. So Det. Gibson sought yet another opinion. Enter Dr. Jane Turner, an assistant medical examiner in St. Louis."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cory-lovelace-mystery-what-did-the-children-see/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

Bulletin: Daniel Dougherty: Philadelphia: Retrial continues; Jurors shown 1985 photo of boys' soot-covered bodies: "Dougherty's trial lawyer, Thomas Ciccone, now deceased, never rebutted the state's expert testimony by calling a defense expert to describe improvements in fire science between 1985 and 2000, the appeals court said. The testimony of Assistant Fire Marshal - John Quinn - now too ill to testify, was left unchallenged. Quinn said the blaze was arson, with fires started on a love seat, a sofa, and beneath a dining-room table. In court on Thursday, Quinn's trial testimony was read to jurors." Trial resumes Monday; Reporter Jeff Gammage; Philadelphia Inquirer;

"Dougherty has always insisted he awoke to a house ablaze, ran outside, then tried desperately to rescue John and Daniel. In 2000, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. Now he's counting on advances in fire science to free him. He was granted a new trial when an appeals court ruled that his lawyer's failures so skewed the original proceeding that "no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence took place." Dougherty's trial lawyer, Thomas Ciccone, now deceased, never rebutted the state's expert testimony by calling a defense expert to describe improvements in fire science between 1985 and 2000, the appeals court said. The testimony of Assistant Fire Marshal - John Quinn - now too ill to testify, was left unchallenged. Quinn said the blaze was arson, with fires started on a love seat, a sofa, and beneath a dining-room table. In court on Thursday, Quinn's trial testimony was read to jurors. They were shown photo after photo of the charred interior of the home. Earlier they heard testimony that Dougherty was a drunk who hit both his live-in girlfriend, Kathleen Schuler, who owned the home, and his wife, Dippel, from whom he was separated. Prosecutors say a vengeful Dougherty set the fire to hurt them both, destroying the house of one and the children of the other. The main drama on Thursday concerned the photos of the boys.........Judge J. Scott O'Keefe ruled that one photo of the dead boys could be shown to the jury.  Defense counsel also failed to keep the jury from hearing Quinn's original testimony, although asserting that Quinn's lack of fire knowledge helped send Dougherty to death row. During the last 20 years, a stream of scientific studies has deflated what once were considered solid indicators of arson. In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, inmates have challenged convictions that they say are based on old, disproven science.".........Prosecutors insist that the original guilty verdict was correct. They will continue presenting their case when the trial resumes Monday."
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160325_Jurors_shown_1985_photo_of_boys__charred_bodies.html

Bulletin: Daniel Dougherty: Philadelphia: (New trial); Ex-girlfriend still says he didn't set the fire that killed his sons; " Dougherty, 56, has insisted from the start that he awoke to a house ablaze, ran outside, then tried desperately to rescue 3-year-old John and 4-year-old Daniel Jr. He's counting on advances in fire science to free him. Sixteen years ago in 2000, Dougherty was convicted and sentenced to death for setting the fire at the Carver Street rowhouse. He was granted a new trial in 2014 after an appellate court ruled that his lawyer's failures had so skewed the original proceeding that "no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence took place." His death sentence was vacated in 2012, becoming a life sentence. The retrial holds national implications as an example of cases in which evolving fire science has freed some inmates and brought the guilt of others into question. Prosecutors insist that the original guilty verdict was correct." (Philadelphia Inquirer report published Wednesday March 23, 2016 - updated March 24): Reporter Jeff Gammage;

"She didn't think Daniel Dougherty started the fire that killed his two young sons. She thought it was caused by an electric fan near the front door. That's what Kathleen Schuler told investigators soon after a 1985 blaze destroyed the Oxford Circle rowhouse where she lived with Dougherty, her son, and his boys. The police sought to set her straight: It was arson, and they believed that Dougherty did it. Schuler couldn't accept that. Even later, after she and Dougherty broke up, she went back to police to tell them that she and Dougherty were smokers, and so was a babysitter and other visitors. She hadn't emptied the ashtrays on the day of the fire. On Wednesday in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, Schuler, now Kathleen McGovern, was summoned by prosecutors seeking to convict Dougherty of murder in his second trial, and became the first witness to suggest what is a central claim of Dougherty's defense - that the blaze might not be arson. Dougherty, 56, has insisted from the start that he awoke to a house ablaze, ran outside, then tried desperately to rescue 3-year-old John and 4-year-old Daniel Jr. He's counting on advances in fire science to free him. Sixteen years ago in 2000, Dougherty was convicted and sentenced to death for setting the fire at the Carver Street rowhouse. He was granted a new trial in 2014 after an appellate court ruled that his lawyer's failures had so skewed the original proceeding that "no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence took place." His death sentence was vacated in 2012, becoming a life sentence. The retrial holds national implications as an example of cases in which evolving fire science has freed some inmates and brought the guilt of others into question. Prosecutors insist that the original guilty verdict was correct.........On Wednesday, it was apparent that the passage of time was impacting the trial, with memories faded and witnesses dead or unavailable. Retired Assistant Fire Marshal John Quinn, whose arson finding helped send Dougherty to death row, is too ill to testify. His previous testimony will be read into the record. On Wednesday, testimony from a Philadelphia homicide detective, now deceased, was read to the jury. He interviewed Dougherty hours after the fire. Dougherty denied setting the blaze. He thought the likely cause was a faulty electrical outlet into which the fan and a stereo were plugged.

Dougherty, then 25, wasn't charged until 14 years later, in 1999. His estranged second wife, Adrienne Sussman, then battling him for custody of their son, Stephen, called police and told them he had confessed to her. She didn't testify at his original trial, and has since died."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160324_Ex-girlfriend_still_says_man_didn_t_set_fire_that_killed_his_sons.html

Keith Kutska; Wisconsin; Murder or suicide? He has appealed to Wisconsin’s Third District Court of Appeals seeking to overturn a judge’s decision to not grant him a new trial for the murder of Tom Monfils. "In a July hearing, Kutska's new team of lawyers argued that his lawyer at trial and his appeals lawyer were incompetent because they relied too heavily on findings by pathologist Dr. Helen Young, who investigated Monfils' death. Young concluded major injuries on Monfils' body must have occurred before he was put in the pulp vat, indicating he had been beaten. They also argued a theory that Monfils committed suicide wasn’t properly presented at Kutska's trial and that a detective investigating the case bullied witnesses into giving false statements."

"Attorneys for Keith Kutska have appealed to Wisconsin’s Third District Court of Appeals seeking to overturn a judge’s decision to not grant him a new trial for the murder of Tom Monfils. Kutska is one of six men convicted of conspiring to kill Monfils in 1992. Monfils, 35, was found dead in a pulp vat at the former James River mill with a 50-pound weight tied to his neck. An appeal brief filed on March 18 argues Kutska, 64, was denied a new trial in January because the judge did not properly consider all the new evidence his attorneys presented during arguments last year.........Kutska’s defense team requested Bayorgeon to consider granting Kutska a new trial because he was ineffectively represented in the original trial and convicted based on erroneous evidence, perjured testimony and official misconduct. In a July hearing, Kutska's new team of lawyers argued that his lawyer at trial and his appeals lawyer were incompetent because they relied too heavily on findings by pathologist Dr. Helen Young, who investigated Monfils' death. Young concluded major injuries on Monfils' body must have occurred before he was put in the pulp vat, indicating he had been beaten. They also argued a theory that Monfils committed suicide wasn’t properly presented at Kutska's trial and that a detective investigating the case bullied witnesses into giving false statements."
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2016/03/22/monfils-appeal-kutska/82119752/

Dr. Waney Squier; (Aftermath 3): Publisher's View: Why the outrageous attack against Dr. Squier by the British General Medical Council - and its decision to thrust her out of the UK's medical profession - reminded me of the vicious attacks on the brilliant, principled, courageous American scientist Elizabeth Loftus - who is also, like Dr. Squier, one of my heroes. "In her acceptance speech for the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award, Loftus states that the word "freedom" is personally important to her, as when she began speaking out about repressed memory, she never imagined she would become "the target of organized, relentless vitriol and harassment". Loftus feels that today's world for science is a perilous one and if scientists want to preserve their freedoms they need to speak out "against even the most cherished beliefs that reflect unsubstantiated myths". Like Loftus, Dr. Squier has become the target of "organized, relentless vitriol and harrassment." And like Loftus she has fought to preserve scientific freedom by speaking out "against even the most cherished beliefs that reflect unsubstantiated myths" - in spite of the inevitable persecution (read 'witch hunt') which she would be, and was exposed to.

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: The outrageous attack against Dr. Squier by the British Medical Council - and its decision to thrust her out of the UK's medical profession reminded me of bitter, uneducated, attacks on  Elizabeth Loftus,   another one of my heroes.  Loftus, an American cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory,  was pilloried by some of her peers for research which concluded that human memory is fallible - and for her finding that some allegations of child sexual abuse were based on false “recovered repressed memories” of events that never happened. (This exposed her to unwarranted allegations that she denied  the possibility of child sexual abuse and attacked its victims,) The comprehensive Wikipedia page on Loftus, who has been recognized throughout the world for her work, informs us that "Loftus’ work was used to oppose recovered memory evidence provided in court^[11] and resulted in stricter requirements for the use of recovered memories being used in trials as well as a greater requirement for corroborating evidence.  In  addition, some states no longer allowed prosecution based on recovered memory testimony and insurance companies were more reluctant to insure therapists against malpractice suits relating to recovered memories. Not surprisingly, Loftus, like Squier, came under attack from vested interests who cared little about the consequences of  myths disguised as science  in the criminal  courts. As the site notes, "In addition to opposition from fellow researchers, Loftus has been insulted by a prosecutor, attacked by an airplane passenger who recognized her,^[8][11] received hate mail and death threats,^[11][20] and has had to have protection by security guards while giving invited addresses.^[8][10] After criticizing the theory of recovered memory and testifying about the nature of memory and false allegations of child sexual abuse as part of the day care sex abuse hysteria, Loftus was subject to on-line harassment by conspiracy theorist Diana Napolis, who believed Loftus was engaged in satanic ritual abuse or assisted in covering up these crimes as part of a larger conspiracy.^"  Most importantly - and of direct relevance to the untenable situation in which Dr. Squier finds herself -  the site points out that: "In her acceptance speech for the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award, Loftus states that the word "freedom" is personally important to her, as when she began speaking out about repressed memory, she never imagined she would become "the target of organized, relentless vitriol and harassment". Loftus feels that today's world for science is a perilous one and if scientists want to preserve their freedoms they need to speak out "against even the most cherished beliefs that reflect unsubstantiated myths". Like Loftus, Dr. Squier has become the target of "organized, relentless vitriol and harrassment." And like Loftus she has fought to preserve scientific freedom by speaking out  "against even the most cherished beliefs that reflect unsubstantiated myths" - in  spite of the inevitable persecution (read 'witch hunt')  which she would be, and was exposed to. The good news is that Elizabeth Loftus has beome recognized throughout the world for her work, as reflected in numerous awards and honorary degrees - while her ignorant neanderthal opponents now wallow in obscurity. I expect the same will happen to Dr. Waney Squier, and other courageous researchers who, like her, have exposed the myth of shaken baby syndrome - and can't happen soon enough.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus

 PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
 

Bulletin: Daniel Dougherty: Philadelphia; Junk arson 'science; McLatchy News reports that more than 30 years after his two young sons died in a house fire, and nearly 17 years after he was sentenced to death for setting it, Daniel Dougherty will get a new chance to prove what he has always insisted: He didn't murder his children, he loved them and tried to save them the night their Oxford Circle house burned in 1985. Dougherty, 56, has been granted a new trial in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court after an appellate court found that his lawyer's failures so skewed the original proceeding that "no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence took place." His retrial is scheduled to start Monday. Dougherty's new lawyers are expected to present expert testimony to show that the fire science used to convict him was bunk, that what sounded like proof of arson actually proved nothing..." Nationally known investigator John Lentini, of Scientific Fire Analysis L.L.C. in Florida, said the cause of the blaze should have been ruled "undetermined." The extensive damage to the brick rowhouse, he wrote in a report for the defense, made it impossible to determine where or how the fire started. What's certain, he said, is that the evidence did not show three separate points of origin, the basis for the prosecution's conclusion that the fire was arson. Dougherty has always said he was asleep on the living-room couch, his children in their second-floor bedroom, when he awoke to see the curtains on fire. He ran outside, then tried to reach the boys before being forced back by heavy smoke and flames. Experts who study arson convictions compare Dougherty's case to that of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in Texas in 2004 for killing his three young daughters by setting the family home ablaze. Five years later, an expert hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission called the arson finding into question, and said better understanding of fires could have freed Willingham. Around the country, prison inmates have challenged convictions they say are based on old, disproven science." McLatchy News;

"More than 30 years after his two young sons died in a house fire, and nearly 17 years after he was sentenced to death for setting it, Daniel Dougherty will get a new chance to prove what he has always insisted: He didn't murder his children, he loved them and tried to save them the night their Oxford Circle house burned in 1985. Dougherty, 56, has been granted a new trial in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court after an appellate court found that his lawyer's failures so skewed the original proceeding that "no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence took place." His retrial is scheduled to start Monday. Dougherty's new lawyers are expected to present expert testimony to show that the fire science used to convict him was bunk, that what sounded like proof of arson actually proved nothing......... In 2000, the jury took only three hours to convict Dougherty of murdering 4-year-old Daniel Jr. and 3-year-old John, who died of smoke inhalation. "The important issue here is the science," said Marissa Boyers Bluestine, legal director of the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, which works to exonerate people convicted of crimes they did not commit, and which has assisted Dougherty. "I'm not convinced [prosecutors] can meet the standard that a crime occurred." Nationally known investigator John Lentini, of Scientific Fire Analysis L.L.C. in Florida, said the cause of the blaze should have been ruled "undetermined." The extensive damage to the brick rowhouse, he wrote in a report for the defense, made it impossible to determine where or how the fire started. What's certain, he said, is that the evidence did not show three separate points of origin, the basis for the prosecution's conclusion that the fire was arson. Dougherty has always said he was asleep on the living-room couch, his children in their second-floor bedroom, when he awoke to see the curtains on fire. He ran outside, then tried to reach the boys before being forced back by heavy smoke and flames. Experts who study arson convictions compare Dougherty's case to that of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in Texas in 2004 for killing his three young daughters by setting the family home ablaze. Five years later, an expert hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission called the arson finding into question, and said better understanding of fires could have freed Willingham. Around the country, prison inmates have challenged convictions they say are based on old, disproven science.........Key prosecution testimony came from John Quinn, who 15 years earlier was an assistant city fire marshal. He said the fire started in three places. Dougherty's descriptions of his rescue efforts were not believable, he said, because his body showed no exposure to flames or smoke. Dougherty's lawyer, Ciccone, never challenged that testimony by having an expert address the scientific advances between 1985 and 2000. If the jury had heard and believed such an authority, the Superior Court said in ordering a new trial, it "would have had reasonable doubt about [Dougherty's] guilt.""

http://www.firehouse.com/news/12185191/retrial-ordered-for-pa-man-accused-in-deadly-arson