Have you read the Beyler report? from Dudley Sharp, contact at bottom
Beyler Report Link at bottom

Here is an almost unbelievable example of how bad it can be:

p 46 “The appearance of brown stain on the porch at the front door was taken as an indicator of an accelerant spill which was ignited to start the fire. “AC Fogg did not consider or explain how this could be true in light of the early eyewitnesses who saw no fire on the porch or at the front door.”

Dr. Beyler, try this.

There could have been multiple locations where the fire was started, not just one.

Willingham lit the fire from the porch, as the fire traveled inside, the fire died down on the porch, as the accelerant was consumed. The fire travels down the hall into the children’s room, the fire expands in the bedroom as it ignites all of the flammables. Thereby none of the early witnesses saw the fire on the porch.

The brown stains on the porch had nothing to do with arson, but are representative of formerly spilled lighter fluid, which would be consistent with the number of lighter fluid containers found on the porch.

The fire was started inside the house, in the hallway and burned toward the twins and away from the front of the house.

All the early witnesses said there was little visible smoke and no visible fire. How is Beyler unaware of that?

Everyone who has used lighter fluid in grilling, knows that if you spill some on concrete or wood and it becomes ignited, it’ll burn for a few seconds and is all but invisible and then it just goes out when the source is burned away.

Beyler is well aware of all those possibilities, as to why none of the early witnesses saw any fire.

Beyler really is THAT bad.

Secondly, Beyler has no idea how long the fire had been burning, prior to the “early witnesses”, yet, Beyler presumes, with NO evidence, that these eyewitnesses should have seen fire on the porch or doorway. Dr. Beyler, just because they didn’t see a fire, doesn’t mean there wasn’t one, set on the porch, earlier, when Willingham lit it. Reread the above.

Beyler appears to be creating alleged evidence to exonerate Willingham. It makes no reasonable sense and conflicts with any notion of a scientific method.

Then, Beyler presents this:

p46 “The only basis proffered for Willingham as the fire setter was that had the hallway been subjected to an accelerant spill, he could not have escaped without serious lower body injuries.”

If Willingham was on the porch when he lit the fire, how and why would he have serious lower body injuries going through the hallway?

If Willingham decided to stay in the house and travel through the hallway, after he lit the fire, the fire could have remained very small in the hallway, when only a small amount of accelerant was used. There would be no reason for him to suffer any lower body burns.

Willingham had several options to leave the house without coming near to the fire.

Beyler is aware of all of those options, but failed to mention them.

Is Beyler a moronic defense attorney or an arson expert?

As I have stated, repeatedly, depend on more evidence not less and wait  upon rebuttals, prior to reaching a final conclusion. Read everything  available.

Beyler Report
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=10401390

Dudley Sharp
e-mail _sharpjfa@aol.com_ (mailto:sharpjfa@aol.com) , 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS ,
VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline,
The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in
newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted
interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty,
extensively and internationally.