In too many cases, police investigators work toward an outcome of closing a case and arresting a suspect regardless of the truth. The fire I survived was
originally ruled accidental due to careless smoking, then incorrectly changed to incendiary. Two of the three people in the house initially survived the fire.
One person was ignored by the police until she succumbed to her multiple, severe injuries. To cover this glaring error of not properly investigating, the
woman was described as having been comatose from the time of her rescue until her death. This is contrary to the police, rescue and hospital reports which, at various times, described her as conscious and communicative. Other people who would have been able to provide insight into the family were ignored.

However, other actions, which were undeniably dishonest, were energetically undertaken by the police detectives investigating the fire. According to the
police chief at that time, detectives went to another government agency, not to gather evidence or reports, but seeking to have accidental reports of the fire
changed or destroyed. Other exculpatory information was "misfiled" or not put into report form at all. The township fire marshal wrote multiple reports on the fire. An accidental report written by the fire marshal was uncovered just days before I was to go to trial.

There were multiple "accidental/undetermined" reports available and in the possession of the district attorney prior to my arrest. Incredibly, according to
the independent expert's deposition, he reviewed only the arson reports, without even looking at the accidental reports. The accidental reports were based upon scientific evidence, and the arson reports were based upon the hunches and incomplete scientific work of the investigators. Perhaps, if all reports had been reviewed, the "independent" expert would have realized
that arson just did not fit. In a case where the death penalty was actively sought, this small extra step must be demanded.

"Junk Science" has put innocent people on death row. The science in the reports the DA reviewed was totally wrong and incomplete at best. Everyone involved knew there were more involved chemical tests which, when paid for by the defense, shed a lot of light on fire theories. The state experts ignored scientific procedure on control samples, and used discredited science to explain physical evidence. Scientific advances in the fire investigation field were ignored.

Incredibly, the state's fire experts had problems identifying and explaining fire artifacts. Instead of proving or disproving the accidental and undetermined
reports, the prosecutors exerted great pressure on the people involved to "convince" them to change their opinions, or get them reassigned and attack their professional credibility.

When I was arrested, I was lucky to have the resources available to hire good attorneys and excellent experts. Once the scientific testing was complete, the
DA could no longer ignore my innocence and was forced to drop the charges. Others are not so lucky. In a recent case, a prosecutor wanted to use an inmate that an accused allegedly confessed to, but did not want to allow the defense to ask the inmate about his extensive drug use or prior convictions. In other cases "junk science" is allowed to stand in the place of real science, and in others still, all leads about an accused person's innocence are just abandoned.

If we allow the death penalty to be handed down as it now stands, we have to ask ourselves just what error rate is acceptable-especially since those errors kill
innocent people. The police and their investigators are not infallible. It is up to us to ask questions and ensure the prosecution is competent. A civilized
society demands this. Locking up innocent people does not make society safer at all, but diminishes all of us. The next innocent could be you.