Convicted arsonist may get new trial after 20 years in jail

For years, Adam Gray has held onto the hope that Cook County prosecutors might one day reconsider his conviction for a fire that claimed two lives in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood. His belief was rooted in the idea that advances in fire science had raised serious doubts about the evidence used to convict him.

Now, after 20 years of serving a life sentence without parole, it seems that hope may finally be turning into reality.

In recent court filings, the Conviction Integrity Unit under State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez has concluded that Gray deserves a new trial. The reason? Dramatic developments in fire science have undermined the expert testimony that played a key role in his 1996 arson and murder conviction.

Assistant State’s Attorney Celeste Stewart Stack, who agreed to Gray’s request for a retrial, wrote that “Gray’s original conviction is based, to an unknown degree, upon scientific testimony that is no longer valid or accepted by the relevant scientific community.”

This shift in perspective has come slowly. Fire science had been evolving since the early 1990s, the same year as the fire that led to Gray’s conviction. Yet many investigators were slow to adopt these new standards, relying instead on outdated methods passed down through experience — even when those methods lacked scientific backing.

Today, the updated fire investigation techniques are widely accepted. Across the country, prosecutors and defense attorneys are re-evaluating past cases to determine whether fires were actually set intentionally. Many old 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 revealed that the conviction was built on flawed scientific evidence. Later, a Texas forensic commission acknowledged the error, and many view Willingham as the first person proven innocent through scientific review. However, his prosecutor still defends the original verdict.

In Gray’s case, the fire happened in March 1993 when he was just 14 years old. He was allegedly angry with a girl who lived in a two-flat building on South Albany Avenue after she rejected him. According to police and prosecutors, Gray poured an accelerant on the enclosed back porch and stairs of the second floor. While the girl and her parents survived, Peter McGuiness, 54, and his sister Margaret Mesa, 74, died in the blaze.

At trial, prosecutors focused on two main pieces of evidence: the claim that the fire was intentionally set and a confession from Gray. 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 reported that 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 the officers questioning him. He insisted he was at a friend’s house when the fire occurred.

His legal team gained momentum after consulting with leading fire scientists John Lentini and Gerald Hurst, who had previously reviewed the Willingham case. Hurst argued that the original investigation was flawed, as the so-called "arson indicators" like alligator charring were not reliable. He also said the investigators hadn’t properly ruled out accidental causes.

Lentini further pointed out that the substance found in the milk jug wasn’t actually gasoline, but a petroleum distillate — a material commonly found in treated wood. Neither the jug’s contents nor the burn patterns were effective accelerants.

A year ago, prosecutors still stood by the conviction, citing Gray’s confession as a key factor. But now, with the latest scientific insights, they’ve changed their stance, acknowledging the need for a new trial.

Thanks, Dan

Hydraulics Valve Block

Hydraulics Valve Block,Hydraulic Valve Block Assembly,Valve Block For Hydraulics,Hydraulic Block Valve

JiangSu Speeder heavy machinery Co., LTD , https://www.speederjoint.com