Excerpts from ChicagoTribune.com: For years, Adam Gray held onto the hope that one day, Cook County prosecutors would reconsider his conviction for a fire that killed two people in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood. His case hinged on outdated fire science, and he believed that as new knowledge emerged, it might finally lead to his freedom. After 20 years of serving a life sentence without parole, that moment may have finally arrived. Prosecutors in State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez’s Conviction Integrity Unit have now filed court documents stating that dramatic advances in fire science have cast doubt on the expert testimony that played a key role in Gray’s 1996 arson and murder conviction. As a result, they’ve agreed to grant him a new trial. Assistant State’s Attorney Celeste Stewart Stack wrote in the filing: “Gray’s original conviction is based, to an unknown degree, upon scientific testimony that is no longer valid or accepted by the relevant scientific community.†The shift in Gray’s case has been slow, but not unexpected. Fire science had been evolving since the early 1990s—around the time of the fire that led to Gray’s conviction—but many investigators were slow to adopt these changes. Instead, they relied on traditional methods passed down through experience, even when those practices lacked a solid scientific foundation. Today, these updated standards are widely accepted across the country. Many prosecutors and defense attorneys are re-evaluating old cases to determine whether fires were truly set intentionally. A number of convictions have been overturned as a result. One of the most well-known examples was 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 confirmed the errors, and many see Willingham as the first person proven innocent through scientific analysis after being executed. However, his original prosecutor still defends the conviction. In Gray’s case, the fire happened in March 1993 when he was just 14 years old. According to police and prosecutors, he had a grudge against a girl living in a two-flat at the 4100 block of South Albany Avenue, after she rejected him. The eighth-grader allegedly poured an accelerant on the enclosed back porch and stairs of the second floor. While the girl and her parents escaped, Peter McGuiness, 54, and his sister Margaret Mesa, 74, died in the fire. At trial, prosecutors focused on two main points: the evidence that the fire was intentional and a confession from Gray. Two fire investigators claimed they found alligator-like charring and deep burn patterns, which they said indicated an accelerant was used. A milk jug found in the alley contained what police thought was gasoline, and a gas station clerk reported that Gray had bought gas shortly before the fire. Although Gray admitted to buying gasoline to start the fire during his initial statement, he later recanted, claiming he confessed under pressure from officers. He insisted he was at a friend’s house at the time of the fire. Gray’s legal team gained traction after consulting with leading fire scientists John Lentini and Gerald Hurst, both of whom had previously evaluated the Willingham case. Hurst concluded that the original investigation had been flawed, pointing out that the so-called signs of arson—like alligator charring and burn patterns—were not reliable indicators. He also argued that the investigators had not thoroughly ruled out accidental causes. Lentini found that the substance in the milk jug was not gasoline, but rather a petroleum distillate, which is commonly found in treated wood products and not an effective accelerant. This further weakened the prosecution’s case. A year ago, despite this new evidence, prosecutors still stood by Gray’s conviction, citing his confession as the main reason. But now, with the latest findings from fire science, they’ve changed their stance. Thanks, Dan. Industrial Standardized Door,Ndustrial Sectional Door,Sectional Door Industrial Use,Warehouse Electrical Door NingBo AnSheng Door Industry Technology Co.,Ltd. , https://www.speedeerdoor.com
June 27, 2025