Excerpts from the ChicagoTribune.com:
For years, Adam Gray has held on to the hope that Cook County prosecutors might one day acknowledge that evolving fire science raised serious doubts about his conviction for a fire that killed two people in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood.
Now, nearly 20 years after he was sentenced to life without parole, it seems that moment may finally be here.
The Conviction Integrity Unit, under State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, recently filed court documents stating that dramatic advances in fire science have undermined key expert testimony used to convict Gray of arson and murder in 1996. As a result, they now believe he deserves a new trial.
“Gray’s original conviction is based, to an unknown degree, upon scientific testimony that is no longer valid or accepted by the relevant scientific community,†wrote Assistant State’s Attorney Celeste Stewart Stack in her agreement with Gray’s request for a retrial.
This change in stance has taken time. Although fire science had been evolving since the early 1990s — the same year as the fire that led to Gray’s conviction — many investigators were slow to adopt these new methods. Instead, they relied on outdated practices passed down through experience, rather than scientific evidence.
Today, these updated techniques are widely accepted, and legal professionals across the country are re-evaluating old cases to determine whether fires were truly intentional. Many convictions have been overturned as a result.
One of the most well-known examples is the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas in 2004 for setting a fire that killed his three daughters. A Tribune investigation later revealed that his conviction was based on flawed fire science. A state forensic commission in Texas later agreed, and Willingham is now seen by many as the first person proven innocent through scientific analysis — though his prosecutor still defends the original verdict.
In Gray’s case, the fire occurred in March 1993 when he was just 14 years old. He was allegedly angry at a girl who lived in a two-flat on South Albany Avenue after she rejected him. According to police and prosecutors, Gray poured an accelerant on the back porch of the second floor and the stairs. The girl and her family escaped, but Peter McGuiness, 54, and his sister Margaret Mesa, 74, died in the fire.
At trial, prosecutors focused on two main points: the claim that the fire was intentionally set and Gray’s confession. Two fire investigators testified that they found alligator-like charring and deep burn patterns, which they interpreted as signs of an accelerant being used. A milk jug found in the alley contained what police believed to be gasoline, and a gas station clerk said Gray had purchased fuel shortly before the fire.
Although Gray initially admitted buying gasoline to start the fire, he later recanted, claiming he only confessed due to pressure from officers. He insisted he was at a friend’s house at the time of the fire.
Gray’s legal team gained momentum after consulting with leading fire scientists John Lentini and Gerald Hurst, both of whom had previously examined the Willingham case. Hurst argued that the initial investigation was flawed, pointing out that the so-called “alligator charring†was not a reliable indicator of arson. He also claimed that the fire investigators failed to rule out accidental causes properly.
Lentini, meanwhile, found that the substance in the milk jug was not gasoline but a petroleum distillate, commonly found in treated wood products. He concluded that it wasn’t a suitable accelerant.
A year ago, despite this new information, prosecutors still stood by their decision to uphold Gray’s conviction, citing his confession as the primary reason. But now, with updated scientific understanding, that position has changed.
Thanks, Dan
Extruder Screw & Barrel,Twin Screw Parts For Extruder,Sscrew & Barrel For Extruder
Zhoushan Dinghai Jinxing Plastic Machinery Factory , https://www.jinxingscrew.com