Jerry Hurst and Terri Hinson Strickland dig in on the hard work of conducting research on the Internet, and he approaches her attorney about formally joining the case. 

From: Gerald L. Hurst 
To: Terri Hinson 
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:34:20 
Subject: Re: Lentini 

At 10:23 PM 11/20/97 -0500, you wrote:

> I haven't heard from Lentini. I guess I won't . I did notice he posted a comment on the forens-L. I am also not going to get the pregnancy verified tomorrow. The lady who controls the house arrest has decided she needs to tell the judge first. I expect he will hit the roof. Wright is angry about it. 

> I guess there is no need in me even trying to get excited. I have all ideas that it will be on the front page news Monday. That is just what these news folks like around here. 

> Absolutely nothing is going right. Not with the trial, me, Brittany, nothing and I'm about to just give up. I feel like I am fighting a losing battle. 

> And this isn't fair. 

> I will talk to you later. Thanks for your help and for believing in me. 

I think we need to look at some evidence law and precedent. There are some good examples of prior arson cases in DeHaan's book. If you don't have a copy about to arrive soon, I will send you some copies of the relevant pages. I called my lawyer son, and he will jion me at the UT law library to look into the evidence questions we have including the wire problem and the rights of a defendant to see or get copies of documentary evidence, voire dire and so on. Criminal law is not his forte but we can probably get some hints where to look from a couple of defense-oriented local lawyers whom I have helped in the past. 

Lentini gets a little more time and then we move on to Henderson. 

Jerry

From: Gerald L. Hurst 
To: Terri Hinson 
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:16:49 
Subject: Re: Attorney letter 

At 06:45 PM 11/22/97 -0500, you wrote:

> I don't see the letter!!! 

> I have dug up some information on NEMAX. Not much though. They are listed in the SEC as Nemax Claim Services, Inc. And the agent Information is as following: HIQ Corporate Services, Inc. 116 Byron Place Raleigh, NC 27609. They were listed on June 6, 1996. And the status is listed as active as of Nov.15, 1997. In another search, I found it is indeed owned by USF&G, as their Special Investigation Unit(SIU) and is run by Bob Burnham. I still see no mention of Mangini anywhere. 

> How can I get more on White?

> I am getting more and more curious about this guy. I have also tracked down a few books. However, I have been unable to locate a place to order them from. 

> I did not see anything in the Justice Academy library written by an individual from this state. So I don't know if these will help much. I am attempting to remember where I put my law books. I know some of them were lost in the fire, but I may still have something that can lead us somewhere. My old instructor is now employeed with the Justice Academy and I am going to send him an E-mail, requesting any info he can get. He is on my side too. He probably remembers the days missed because of Brittany being sick one year. He knows as well as most that I never did anything except worry about my kids. Anyway, he offered to help when all of this started, so I will now take him up on it. I'll let you know what I get from him. It could be a few days, he travels a great deal.Oh, I am not worried about the DA. If they could think at all, this wouldn't be happening. And them connecting me to Lentini or anyone else is slim. And like I said, what I sent him was public record anyway. Back with you in a little while. Thanks-- 

Here's the letter I forgot to add last time. It was still in my scratchpad. 

===================================== 

Dear Mr. Wright, 

Thank you for your letter of 11/12/97. 

You have questioned what possible good a "chemist" could bring to the Terri Hinson case. Your reasoning tracks well with a recent friend-of-the-court letter filed by the IAAI (International Association of Arson Investigators). Based on a membership which consists mainly of individuals who have no formal scientific training, the organization has taken the position that arson investigators should not be subject to the Daubert test because their discipline is allegedly not a science and their trade is not a science. The AIIA would have the courts believe that science is a field apart from the "real" world in which their members work. They have good reason to take this position because their members depend heavily on the acceptance by juries of their ability to determine fire cause and origin based on the interpretation of "burn patterns" in much the same way that a gypsy interprets tea leaves. 

I am an experienced fire and explosion analyst with experience dating back some thirty years. I also happen to have a PhD in chemistry from Cambridge which in no way detracts from my experience. Chemistry per se is sometimes an asset in reconstructing the events of a fire but the underlying training in the broader physical sciences is always useful because it prevents me from blindly accepting untenable theories which defy the basic rules of behavior of matter and energy. How important an understanding of the underlying principles is can best be understood in terms of the ability it gives to debunk pathological science. I have practically made a career of showing the court and juries that many fire investigation techniques are routinely based on old wives tales and have no scientific validity. Given the choice between a layman with experience and a scientist with experience, which one do you suppose is better qualified to evaluate physical evidence? 

Roughly three out of four poor defendants have no access to technical experts. Those who are lucky enough to be afforded help by the court generally get a day-trip to the scene, a report and a cameo appearance on the stand by an expert. Typically, the attorney has little or no experience in the specific technical area of the case and may or may not ask the pertinent questions of his witness on direct examination. The cross examination of the opposition experts is often a nightmare in which the technically inexperienced attorney cannot make a dent in testimony of a witness who is dead wrong but has all the magic buzzwords at his command and the experience of dozens of previous trials in the area of his expertise. 

Fire investigation forensics is a swamp. In a recent communication, the representative of ASTM on an NFPA committee estimated that there are about 10,000 investigators in the country and that some three dozen of them are competent. He also estimated that on average at least two people per state per year are erroneously convicted of arson. In about bout 30 percent of all fires nationally, the cause and origin cannot be determined but these fires are often lumped into the general category of "suspicious," which leads to exaggerated estimates of the number of actual arson cases. 

Typically, the first people to investigate a fire include an insurance company expert. Many of these investigators believe they can improve their future employment by finding indications of arson on the one hand or a cause and origin associated with a faulty appliance made by a company with deep pockets. The insurance investigator often works in conjunction with local and state authorities whose business is finding arson and in some higher profile cases this group is joined by the BATF. It is not uncommon for a defendant to find himself assailed in court by four or five "experts" from the various agencies who can have a profound effect on juries. 

Fire investigation with or without the presence of detectable accelerants usually boils down to the interpretation of fire patterns. The "art" of reading these patterns is highly subjective and often readily twisted to suit some preconceived notion of cause and origin. As an example, look at the case of a fire which starts in an attic and burns down into the floor below. The downward initial progression of the fire obviously produces patterns at some stage which indicate the origin in the attic. However, fires burn much more vigorously in the upward direction so that once the ceiling has been breached, the increased ventilation produces a larger and more intense upward regression which can annihilate the original patterns and create a scenario readily interpretable by a biased investigator as defining fire originating in the space below the attic. 

Typical later testimony by the befuddled investigator includes a recitation of his years of experience in (mis)reading fire patterns and the list of the many associations to which he belongs. His testimony can lead to a simple swearing match between himself and the opposition expert, which leaves the jury to base their decision on other, less relevant factors. The big problem arises when the case attracts additional testimony from the local, state and federal agencies. When this happens, the balance of expertise shifts both because of sheer numbers and because of the prestige associated with the acronyms BATF, SBI, FBI, etc. Rebalancing the scales is no problem for the wealthy defendant who can hire a team of experts, but the poor man or woman must depend on the largesse of the court and their own limited resources which rarely extend beyond the bare minimum of a few hours of expert work on the case. 

I have extensive experience in cases involving electricity and electronics and have a close associate who is a former professor of electrical engineering at the University of Texas and operates an engineering consulting firm. We have worked together on many fire cases, often helping each other pro bono in instances in which a client of either of us needs assistance he or she cannot afford. I also have a number of associates who are highly experienced fire investigators with excellent credentials and who have participated with me in the investigation of numerous fire incidents and helped in pro bono cases. These are all men of high integrity with excellent credentials who can be trusted with proprietary information. I believe that my associates will be helpful in providing counsel in specific areas of their expertise and may, in some cases, be willing to provide testimony if it is needed at the time of trial. These gentlemen include Dr. Richard Henderson, Mr. John Lentini, Mr. Kenneth Gibson, Dr. E.P. Hamilton, and Mr. Gary Fye. Dr. Hamilton is the electrical engineer with whom I have conducted numerous experiments dealing with ignition by electrical phenomena in the course of numerous cases. Dr. Henderson, Mr. Fye and Mr. Gibson have been deeply involve with the ongoing Sonia Cacy arson case and Mr. Lentini was recently involved in an arson/murder case in North Carolina. Mr. Fye is an incredibly well-informed in the area of insurance company involvement in fire cases and has extensive files on this subject. Dr. Hamilton has generously offered the use of his laboratory and his sound advice on electrical arc matters in Ms. Hinson's case. 

My usual procedure is to first study all the available documentation and photographs in a case and then restudy the material and organize it into a form which helps anticipate the opposition's case and discover inconsistencies and errors in evidence handling. I have found many instances in the past of the admission of misleading inculpatory evidence in arson trials which could have been prevented by close attention to chain-of-custody documentation. Obviously, there is a limit to the utility of photographs; whenever possible I prefer to visit the scene of an incident. I often also arrange to have a second expert accompany me to avoid missing any important details. 

If you would like me to try to assist you in the Hinson Case, please forward to me copies of all the eye-witness reports, interviews, reports of police, reports of the fire department, reports of fire investigators and photographs available and also a list of materials that may be missing or otherwise unavailable. I will review all of the materials with the utmost of care and then try to arrange a visit to the site of the incident sometime thereafter. I will keep your documents confidential except to the extent that I need to consult with other experts and I will ask those experts also to treat the material as proprietary.