August 24, 2020 • 45 mins
In the early morning hours of June 30th, 1995, 21 year old mother Kristine Bunch awoke in a carbon monoxide haze to the decimation of her entire world - only for junk science and the false testimony of an actual scientist to make matters worse.
Learn more and get involved at:
https://www.justis4justus.org/
https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/with-jason-flom
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
In the summer of nineteen ninety five, twenty one year
old single mom Christine Bunch was living in a trailer
in Greensburg, Indiana, with her three year old son Tony.
In the early morning hours of July thirtieth, an electrical
fire began between the roof and the ceiling tiles. When
the fire caused one of the ceiling tiles to fall
in Tony's bedroom, a cloud of carbon monoxide gas killed
(00:24):
the little boy before the fire even could. Christine awoke
in a carbon monoxide haze, desperately trying to save Tony.
After failed attempts at extinguishing the fire, she ran for help.
Then she smashed Tony's bedroom window, but it was too late.
She was barefoot, homeless, and deep in despair. Arson investigator
(00:47):
Brian Frank used what is widely now known as junk
science to point the blame for Tony's death squarely at Christine.
So six days after losing her three year old boy
and nearly everything she ever had, Christine lost her freedom
as well. With no potential alibi or eyewitnesses, the state
easily sealed Christine's fate with the testimony of Brian Frank
(01:11):
and ATF forensic analyst William Cannard. Christine gave birth to
her son, Trent, just a few months after being sent
to prison and a decade passed before her attorney and
a team from the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern
University uncovered an egregious Brady violation and blatantly false testimony,
freeing Christine after seventeen years, one month, and sixteen days
(01:35):
behind bars. This is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flauber. Welcome
(01:55):
back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason flaum That's me, of course,
and today you're going to hear story that's as heartbreaking
and tragic as it was preventable, and it's a remarkable
look inside the systemic flaws as well as human errors
that lead to wrongful convictions. And in this particular case,
we're going to be telling the story and hearing the
(02:16):
story of one of my absolute favorite human beings, a
personal hero of mine, who is doing amazing, amazing things
in the world right now, today and every day. And
so I am thrilled and honored to have with us
on the show today, Christine.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Bunch, Thank you so much. I'm happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
And with Christine as someone whose name you'll probably recognize,
Ron Safer. Ron is a former US attorney turned corporate
lawyer turned justice fighter, and you'll recognize him because he
was a huge part of the exoneration of Julie Ray,
an episode that I'll never forget, and I hope if
you haven't heard it, that you'll go back and take
(02:56):
a listen. Anyway, Ron, welcome.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Back to be here. Thank you, Jason.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
So let's get right into it. Christine, you grew up
in Indiana, right, I did.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Things took a crazy turn when my parents divorced, but
for the most part I was happy and it was good.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Now at the time of this unimaginable tragedy, you were
just a young mother living in a trailer, working hard,
going to school, just starting your life, just twenty one
years old, right.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
That's correct.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
I was working and going to school, and I had
a beautiful three year old son named Tony.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
And then the worst nightmare that any parent can possibly
have or wake up to in a cold sweat, and
some of us probably have had that experience, but it
actually happened to you. And Ron, can you tell us
about that awful morning of June thirtieth, nineteen ninety five.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
What happened was Christine and Tony had gone to sleep
together on a couch in the living room area of
the trailer. Before Christine woke up, Tony had moved to
the front room, which was a separate room from the
living room. Christine awoke to a sound and a small fire.
(04:18):
She was disoriented, but she saw the small fire and
she tried to put it out with a pillow and
couldn't do that, so she tried to smother the fire
with a blanket, and that didn't work either. Carbon monoxide
(04:38):
is intoxicating. Christine was undoubtedly affected by this carbon monoxide.
She's trying to put out the fire. She can't find
the fire extinguisher. She knows where the fire extinguisher is,
she can't find it. So by that time, the fire
had grown into a wall her and Tony, and she
(05:01):
could not get to him. So she frantically went out
of the trailer, tried to get help, and then tried
to break the window into the front room so that
she could get to Tony, but it was too late,
and Tony had perished.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
It's impossible to even conceive of the horror and the
panic in a time like that, Even if you didn't
have kids like waking up to a fire. Christine, what
are your memories of that awful night now twenty five
years ago.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I think the thing that sits with me the most
is it was just normal.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
I came home from school, and I got Tony from
the babysitter, and we went home and we cooked, and
I think we watched some TV and did some laundry,
and we fell asleep. I'd read him a story and
he wasn't feeling really well, and we fell asleep on
the couch under the air conditioner.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
And everything just seemed normal.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
You didn't realize that you were going to wake up
in your whole world would be turned upside down.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
I mean, your whole world was really destroyed at a
time when the community and the system should have been
coming to help you in every conceivable way. Instead, you
were exposed to and victimized by the worst that the
system and our society has to offer. And it's so
(06:33):
important that you're here now because this arson quote unquote
science that they used in order to frame you and
wrongfully convict you for a crime that never even happened
is something that we need to focus on because we
need awareness among everyone, because someday, you, the listener, may
find yourself on a jury and you may be presented
(06:56):
with this same sort of junk science.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Fire investigation was an apprentice art. There were what was
regarded as common knowledge and industry standards that were passed
down from generation to generation. Virtually none of those conventional
wisdom were true, and when tested by scientific principles, they
(07:25):
were all debunked. Unfortunately, that came too late for Christine.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
And this starts with a fire investigator named Brian Frank.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
So what Frank did was the day of this fire,
and keep in mind this trailer was completely incinerated. He
comes into the trailer and just plucks things out of
thin air. He says, Oh, this is a burn pattern
(07:56):
on the floor. That's evidence of a liquid with the
accelerant like gasoline. Ooh, there's a V pattern on the wall.
That is fire burns up in a V pattern. And therefore,
because there are two of these, there were two points
(08:16):
of origin. A normal accidental fire will have one point
of origin. Sometimes if a fire is intentionally set, it
will have two points of origin. Says oops, here the
fire burned down. That is a sign of a liquid accelerant.
For all of these reasons, I conclude this was not
(08:40):
an accidental fire. This was intentionally set because, as you
said at the beginning, Jason, unlike many crimes like a
robbery or a fraud or a murder, the question in
an arson is was a crime even committed? And upon
that threshold question rests the lives of hundreds of people,
(09:04):
including Christine.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Here's what's absolutely nuts is that to become a licensed
arson investigator, one who can testify in court, you can
take a forty hour correspondence course. It takes fifteen hundred
hours in some places to become a manicurist. You can't
get a barber's license in less than six months. The
(09:27):
idea that they've been relying on these charlatans you'd be
better off consulting with psychics or even just guessing. And
in Christine's case, there are so many other problems. Right,
there's a tunnel vision with holding of sculpatory evidence, there's
multiple incompetent investigators who pass themselves off as experts, and
then it goes downhill from there. So there you are
(09:50):
outside the house and in minutes, in moments, your life
has gone from a good life full of love and
hope to the worst imaginable scenario.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
You're just in shock and you don't really believe what
people are telling you because they kept telling me, no,
you can't go in and know we couldn't get hit
him and know he's not alive.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
And of course, as apparent, you don't want to believe that.
People on the outside want to look at.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
It and say, well, if this was done differently, or
if you had acted this way. And I mean, for myself,
I have played it over and over and over and
over again in my mind. I still every day that
I wake up play it over in my mind, and
(10:43):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Know how to come up with a different scenario. When
you're in that.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
Moment and the terror paralyzes you, you don't know what
you would do. So it's easy to stand outside and
say this should have never happen, and somebody has to
be blamed.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Right, because the alternative is incomprehensible to most people, why
an innocent baby would be taken from us. Christine, six
days in hell, right, six days for you between the
fire and the loss of your child and the time
that you're arrested. What were those six days like? What
(11:24):
were you doing.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
I went with my parents to.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Plan a funeral, and my mom and dad really went
through how the service was going to be, and I
just remember sitting there and crying, and then I told
him that I wanted a song played something that I,
you know, sang with Tony, and he said, we can
(11:51):
play whatever you want, and then I had to go
get clothes.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
To her to a funeral.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
At that time, I was still walking around barefoot because
I'd literally lost everything, and everybody was trying to comfort
you and give you advice, and it.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Just doesn't comfort you. So you feel more alone than
ever because you don't want to hurt their.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Feelings, but everything they're saying to you doesn't penetrate.
Speaker 5 (12:27):
The police didn't help because they followed me everywhere I
went and talked to everybody after I left, and they
even showed up and my son's funeral and burial.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
They came to me before I even got out of
the hospital and told me that it was an arson.
They literally wanted a list of all my family and friends,
anybody that could have possibly done it.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Then they come back to me and say, no, you're
you're the person. You're under arrest for this, and in
a small town.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
Once they make or and arrest and put a headline
on the paper in a small community, in that community's mind,
you're guilty.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
So now you're arrested. How long were you held before
the trial? Were you able to bail out?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
I was in there from July sixth to October mid October,
I bonded out on a fifty thousand dollars cash bond.
I tell my son Trent all the time that he's
the miracle that saved me. But when I got out,
I certainly didn't care if I lived or died, and
(13:41):
so I was drinking and doing a lot of self
medicating because I just didn't want to feel anymore. And
in the midst of that, I started getting sick and
that's when I discovered I was pregnant.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Yeah, and that's the worst possible scenario. Although now, as
you said, it turns out to be the thing that
saved you. And we'll get into more of that later.
But Ron, this trial is full of I mean again,
it's horseshit. The stuff that they were spewing from the stand.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
It began with the prosecutor standing in front of the
jury and saying motive is not an element of the crime.
We don't have to prove motive. People tend not to
commit crimes for no reason. And of course they investigated
Christine and her motive for this crime, and they found
(14:42):
that she was a good, loving, carrying, wonderful mother and
that she and Tony had a beautiful relationship. Everybody said
that universally, and so they're left with telling the jury, Okay,
Christine committed this horrific crime for no reason, but we
(15:06):
don't have to prove motive. Then their case depended one
hundred percent on this quote unquote expert testimony, because Christine
didn't set this fire, so of course nobody saw her
set the fire, nobody saw her prepare to set the fire,
(15:26):
nobody's heard her talk about setting the fire, nobody afterwards.
There was no physical evidence, no forensic evidence, nothing. Of course,
the trailer wasn't insured, she lost all of her possessions,
she lost, of course, the person who meant most to
her in the world. So they were left with this
(15:47):
expert testimony, these absurd fire investigation myths, which should have
and could have been dispelled by a defense atturn or
competent defense expert. But there was something else that was
critical in this trial that would have been difficult for
(16:09):
a defense attorney to combat.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
And I have to tell the audience that this critical
evidence becomes just as important later to prove in Christine's
innocence as it was in getting her convicted. But go ahead, Ron.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
They took ten samples from the trailer, from the floor
of the trailer, from the carpet of the trailer, from
Christine's nightgown, and they tested it for various accelerants. There
was no gasoline. There was no inflammatory substance of any
(16:41):
kind on Christine's nightgown, even though they said that she
would splash this accelerant all around. But there were two
positive samples. And those samples, by the way, were given
to the Bureau of Alcohol to back on firearms atf
who federally investigates arson crimes and they have special laboratories,
(17:05):
and they did gas chromatography on these samples, and they
presented evidence at trial that there were two positive tests
for what they called a heavy petroleum distillant like jet
fuel or something else specifically not kerosene, and that was
(17:31):
found in the living room area and critically in the
front room, the room where Tony was found now there
is reason for there to be kerosene in the living
room because the prior owners of this trailer testified that
they had a kerosene heater and that they overfilled it
(17:53):
from time to time. Kerosene does not evaporate, and so
even from years before, there would be kerosene in the wood.
But there's no explanation for a heavy petroleum distolate like
jet fuel. And there is absolutely no innocent explanation for
there to be a heavy petroleum distolate in the front
(18:16):
room Tony's bedroom. And that was critical evidence that was
not refuted by the defense attorney. And on the strength
of that expert testimony of end these critical lab determinations,
Christine was convicted.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
March fourth, nineteen ninety six, twenty two years old. Pregnant,
Christine is convicted of arson and murder. Less than a
month later, she's sentenced to two concurrent terms, sixty years
for murder and fifty years for arson. So how pregnant
were you, Christine at the time of this wrongful conviction
(18:57):
And what the hell was it like giving birth behind ball?
Speaker 2 (19:02):
I was almost six months pregnant.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
The only thing they don't do to pregnant women is
make them wear the belly chain and the box because
the baby's not a prisoner. But with so many pregnant
women in there, you don't always get soft cuffs for
your feet. So I've got deep scars on the back
of my ankles from wearing those metal shackles. And then
(19:33):
when I finally went into labor, I didn't really know
that I was in labor because I was just having
a backache. So they took me to the infirmary and
couldn't find a heartbeat.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
I lost it.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
I started, you know, screaming at him, and so I
was handcuffed.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
And shackle and taken out into an ambulance.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
And when I got to the hospital, a doctor come
in and explained that I was having contractions and that's
why they could here the heartbeat. They determined that I
was going to have an emergency c section, so they
had cuffs and shackles came off, and I got a
metal cuff on my ankle in the log chain.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
I got about thirty six hours with Trent.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
And then I was transferred back to the facility and
my family took him home.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
The Pacers Foundation is a proud supporter of this episode
of Rawfuel Conviction and of the Last Mile organization, which
provides business and tech training to help incarcerated individuals successfully
and permanently re enter the workforce. The Pacers Foundation is
committed to improving the lives of Hoosiers across Indiana, supporting
organizations that are dedicated primarily to helping young people and students.
(20:51):
For more information on the work of the Pacers Foundation
or the Last Mile Program, visit Pacersfoundation dot org or
the Lastmile dot org. This episode is sponsored by AIG,
a leading global insurance company, and Paul Weiss Rifkin, Wharton
and Garrison, a leading international law firm. The AIG pro
(21:12):
Bono Program provides free legal services and other support to
many nonprofit organizations and individuals most in need, and recently
they announced that working to reform the criminal justice system
will become a key pillar of the program's mission. Paul
Weiss has long had an unwavering commitment to providing impactful
pro bono legal assistance to the most vulnerable members of
(21:34):
our society and in support of the public interest, including
extensive work in the criminal justice area. So the good
news is that there is actually an equal or greater
number of heroes in this story. Than villains Betsy Marx,
(21:55):
Hillary po Rix, Jamie McAllister, and the other two actual
fire science to John Dehan and John Maluley, plus the
electrical engineer Richard Hanson. Then Karen Daniel and Jane Raley,
legends in the field were on your side. And of
course Ron himself, Ron Safer, I mean, the fucking cavalry
(22:17):
came in on this one, right. Can you talk now
about the process that led seventeen years later to Christine
finally coming home.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Yes, Christine pursued this tirelessly against all odds. Found a
wonderful local attorney, Hillary bo Rix, who believed in Christine
but really did not have the resources to take on
the awesome power of the state, and a supporter of Christine.
(22:47):
Wrote a letter to Northwestern Center on Wrongful Convictions, and
Jane Rayley, along with Karen Daniel, took Christine's case and
they disassembled every piece of evidence the state put forward.
Karen and Jane assembled the world's experts on fire science,
(23:09):
not the myths of arson investigation, but on fire science
to prove first that everything the state said was wrong,
and then second that Christine was innocent, not beyond a
reasonable doubt. Beyond any doubt. So first they got a
former ATF agent and he testified that every one of
(23:34):
the myths that was used by the so called arson
investigator Brian Frank was wrong. A V pattern does not
indicate a point of origin. It indicates a point where
something burned against a wall. Fire burns down not because
of the liquid accelerant, but because it's seeking oxygen and
(23:55):
there was a hole in the trailer. So the burn
patterns that Frank says indicated that there was a liquid
accelerant have been disproved. Brian Frank said that the fire
was hotter because a liquid accelerant was used. That is
a myth. Controlled experiments prove that fire is no hotter. Indeed,
(24:17):
the heat depends on what is being burnt. So chemistry
physics disproved every one of the pieces of evidence. But
there was one more critical thing that Karen Daniel did
that was pivotal. She subpoened the underlying test data that
(24:38):
had been used by the ATF lab and all of
the documents related to those tests, and what that found
was stunning. First, she got the actual gas chromatographs, so
the actual tests, and contrary to his testimony, he did
(24:59):
test against the standard of kerosene, not a heavy dissolute,
but kerosene. Then when you look at those actual test data,
you find that, yes, there was kerosene in the living
room where the kerosene heater had been years before. But
then you look at the sample from Tony's bedroom, the
(25:20):
sample that convicted Christine, and the test was negative for
any liquid accelerate, kerosene, heavy petroleum distillate, nothing. What's more,
in that file, there was a draft report that reflected
(25:42):
accurately the test results, that is, that there had been
kerosene in the living room and that the sample in
Tony's bedroom was negative. And then there was a report
that in handwriting that crossed that out and made that
test result positive. How that happened, unfortunately, we'll never know
(26:05):
because by the time we got to the hearing, the
ATF agent, who is now deceased, was incompetent in an
assisted living home and could not testify about what happened.
But what was clear was Christine was convicted based on
(26:25):
not only faulty but false evidence. So that takes care
of the States case.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
So Christine's team exposed the junk science and the outright
falsification of the real scientific data that led to our conviction.
And by the way, these are your tax dollars at work.
And if you don't think this could happen to you, well,
don't even get me started. There's more to this, and
I'm talking about with the defenses. Expert Jamie McAllister testified
to about how the fire really started.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Jamie McAllister, who is an expert in examining the victim's
chemistry and reverse engineering how a fire must have started,
testified about how this fire started. Tony died before the
fire got hot. He died of carbon monoxide poisoning. There
(27:17):
was no burning in his trachea, no burning in his lungs,
and so he had stopped breathing before the fire got hot.
His carboxy hemoglobin rate, which is what we referred to
as carbon monoxide poisoning. It's when the carbon monoxide bonds
with your blood. The hemoglobin was eighty percent. Fifty percent
(27:41):
is lethal. So how did it get that high? Well,
Jamie McAllister testifies that controlled experiment show that if the
fire had started out in the open air of the
living room or the bedroom, it would have produced a
lot of carbon die oxide. Two oxygen molecules. Because there's
(28:03):
a lot of air floating around and very little carbon
monoxide one oxygen molecule, it would have taken ninety minutes
for the fire to have produced enough carbon monoxide for
Tony to have gotten to a carboxy hemoglobin rate approaching
(28:23):
eighty percent. He would have burned to death long before that,
and of course his lungs and everything else would have burned.
That didn't happen. So how did this fire happen? Well,
as an electrician testified, there were electrical wires that were
overloaded that ran between the roof and the drop down
(28:48):
ceiling tiles. There was an electrical fire that started that morning.
But because there's limited oxygen there, what happens is the
fire smolders and produces a lot of carbon monoxide up
in the ceiling. Now, eventually the fire gets hot enough
(29:09):
so that one of the ceiling tiles burns and drops
to the floor. That undoubtedly is what Christine awakens to. Now,
when that happens, the carbon monoxide fills the Tony's room
like a balloon that is letting out its air. Physical
tests and chemical tests prove within minutes he dies of
(29:33):
carbon monoxide poisoning. That's how this fire had to have happened.
And thus, not only was there no evidence that Christine
was guilty of an arson, there was conclusive evidence that
the fire was an accidental fire that took place in
(29:53):
the confined area of the ceiling, and that Tony died
as everybody knew, of carbon monoxide poisoning.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
But in spite of all of this, on June eighth
of twenty ten, now over fourteen years after your conviction,
Judge Weshoffer denied you a new trial. He said, quote,
While and this is a quote, while mss Bunch had
new resources available to her at the post conviction hearing,
new experts do not create new evidence. The issues raised
(30:25):
and the conclusions reached, while packaged differently, remained basically the
same as they were at trial in nineteen ninety six
end quote. He went on to add that he did
not believe the ATF documents would have changed the outcome
of the trial. And I mean it was exposed that
they falsified the findings and said the samples were positive
(30:46):
when they weren't. What the actual fuck like And this again,
if you don't think this can happen to you and
I'm talking to the audience now, of course you're wrong.
A very large percentage of judges are elected and the
others are appointed by elected officials. Either way, your decisions
in the voting booth are going to determine who ends
(31:08):
up on the bench. So and of my rant, back
to the story. Meanwhile, another Indianapolis lawyer joins the team,
John Larimore, And then we get to the good stuff.
Right on July thirteenth, twenty eleven, Ron who's here with
us now, argued in front of a three member panel
of the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
At the argument itself, it was very clear from the
questioning of the judges that one judge was dead set
against us. There was nothing I was going to be
able to say to change his mind. One judge was
for us, and no matter how incoherently I babbled, he
was going to vote for us. And so the middle judge,
(31:52):
the chief judge, held Christine's fate in her hand. Our
working theory and it made sense, said, if the court
was going to reverse this conviction, they would have done
it right away because they know she's sitting in jail.
So we're sitting there understanding that The longer this goes on,
(32:12):
the more likely it is we lost. As time wore on,
despair grew.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
And eight of what must have been truly agonizing. Months later, Christine,
on March twenty first of twenty twelve, in a two
to one decision, the panel reversed the conviction and granted
you a new trial, citing the evolution of fire science,
as well as the fact that sculpatory evidence was withheld
(32:40):
that quote unquote directly contradicted ATF forensic analyst William Kinnard's
trial testimony. Christine, how did you find out about this
momentous decision?
Speaker 4 (32:52):
I got a call to come to the counselor's office
and my lawyers were on the phone to.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Tell me that they had reversed my conviction and remanded
for a new trial.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
I started crying, and I asked them if they called
my son.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
I wanted him to know that I won and I
was going.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
To come home, and so they assured me that yes,
they were calling him, and I ended up. I stayed
in the counselor's office for like an hour and a
half because I head back to back calls, and she said,
you know, she said, we're just going to make this
your day, so everybody can call and congratulate you and
(33:31):
tell you the news, and they were just so happy
for me.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Ron. What about you? What's your recollection of that phone call?
Speaker 3 (33:39):
I cared beyond measure about Christine in this case and
getting her out of jail, and when it ultimately happened,
it was as if it was happening to my sister.
Just the most moving experience. Although the reality comes home
of Okay, she's not at a jail, she gets a
(34:02):
new trial, is she's still sitting in jail. We got
to get her out of jail.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
So almost five months go by after March twenty first,
twenty twelve and the amazing phone call, all the way
to August eighth, when the Indiana Supreme Court left the
Appellate Court's decision undisturbed. And then finally about a month
after that, September one, twenty twelve, seventeen years, one month
and sixteen days after you were arrested, Christine, you were
(34:31):
finally released into the arms of your family. What was
that like?
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Well, I mean when you first walk out, I think
all you're looking at is the dream finally happened.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
And I have so many possibilities.
Speaker 4 (34:46):
After that initial who wears off, then you're left.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
With all of these fears and insecurities.
Speaker 4 (34:57):
It was great walking out and seeing everyone, but then
you know, I'm facing another murder trial, so we have
to start preparing for that. And I have, you know,
my son, who I have to provide a home for,
and I have to make sure that he has everything
(35:17):
he needs. He's just sixteen, so I don't have a
driver's license, I don't have any kind of ID, I
don't have renter's history, credit score, all of these things.
I don't even know where I'm going to get a
job after seventeen years. So fear starts to take you over,
and I think that At first I was just like,
(35:39):
I'm not going.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
To make it. There's no way I'm going to be
able to make it.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
And that first night, my son was showing me on
his laptop how to set up a Facebook account, and
while I'm looking at it, I see that he has
the Appellate Court site bookmarked, and I said, why do
you have that? And he looked at me and he said,
because I checked every day to see if they made
(36:05):
a decision, and you.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Were coming home, and I started crying.
Speaker 4 (36:11):
And I said, you know, I said, I've been so
worried and so unsure, but.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
Hearing that you believed in me and we're just waiting
for me to come home. I can make it through anything.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
Then another and a long line of amazing developments in
your case happened just before Christmas, which must have made
that time of year even sweeter. The prosecution finally came
around to their senses and dropped the charges, which brings
us to your next struggle, compensation for all that lost time.
And of course no amount of money can be enough
(36:55):
to repay what you lost, but you had an uphill
battle and a unique struggle to even get compensation. Can
you fill us in on that.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Yes, So, like everyone, I filed a civil suit.
Speaker 4 (37:07):
Clearly people are protected, so you have to break through
immunity to try to sue. The issue is the ATF
chemist is deceased, so I didn't have a leg to
stand on, and that was ultimately dismissed.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Compensation.
Speaker 4 (37:24):
I have been working since I've been out, and well,
I've helped pass new legislation in three different states working
with the Innocence Project. This past year we passed compensation
in Indiana and then when my civil suit was dismissed,
I applied for the compensation. You know, it was I think,
(37:46):
very surreal to receive a letter from them saying that
just because my conviction was reversed and I wasn't retried
did not mean that I was actually innocent, and it really,
I mean it hurt my feeling. Is because I testified
before these legislators three separate occasions. The senators and representatives
(38:08):
that passed this bill used my case to pass this
compensation bill, and then you're going to basically retry me
all over again.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
So are they really trying to relitigate this case?
Speaker 2 (38:21):
No, they are not.
Speaker 4 (38:23):
But as you go through the process, you fill out
a compensation application and then they review it. So for them,
they reached out to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor said,
you know, no, we didn't have evidence at the time
to retry this, but you know, we aren't going to
say we made a mistake. They never want to say
(38:44):
they made a mistake.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
So I had.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
To reach out to everyone I knew, the Center on
Wrongful Convictions with you know, the amazing Laura and I
writer and Steve Drisen, Ron Safer and all of them
wrote letters and admitted the evidence that was used to
exonerate me in order to show them that I am
innocent and worthy of this conversation.
Speaker 2 (39:09):
Twenty five years after the fact.
Speaker 4 (39:12):
They are reviewing the application. They've been reviewing it since November.
Speaker 1 (39:17):
Yeah, well, let's hope they come to their senses and
come to the right decision, because I think the right
thing to do is clear to everyone who's listening and
to anyone with a heart and a soul. So let's
get to what you're doing now. You started an organization
called just Is for just Us.
Speaker 4 (39:34):
Just is just like it sounds because the situation just is,
and then it's for just us, which means all of
us exoneries. Justice for just Us was started by myself
and another exonery that came from the Center on Wrongful
Convictions and Juan and I just basically wanted to address
(39:55):
what it was like because when people walk out, you
don't have a toothbrush, you don't have the basic necessities.
So j for JA for short. You know, we're helping
with boxes. If somebody reaches out and says, hey, I
need an outfit and I need basic hygiens, we put
that together. We've helped take some axonneries to the Innocence conference,
(40:15):
sent out gas cards, cash cards, We've paid rent, we've
paid bills, and our organization allows healthcare providers to donate
services so they can get a dental visit or some
counseling sessions or a physical things that are desperately needed
when you return.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
It's such an important thing, you know. I've tried to
devote myself to doing as much as I can to
help people coming out of the system, because it's exactly
as you described. It's like I call it the second punishment.
And what I mean by that is most people coming
out have no support whatsoever. They may get forty dollars
and a bus ticket and then you know, not even
(40:56):
a good luck. So there are a number of wonderful
organis stations doing this work, and I encourage everyone to
support just is for just Us. So please everyone scroll
down on the episode description and get involved with just
Is for just Us. And now this is the part
of the show, of course that we call closing arguments.
(41:17):
So first of all, thank you to our phenomenal guest today.
The closing argument segment works like this, I turn off
my microphone, kick back on my chair, leave my headphones on.
Sometimes I close my eyes, and we're going to let
each of you have the final word on whatever you
want to talk about. So let's go to Ron first
and then Christine you can just take us out.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
Well, first of all, thanks so much Jason for telling
this story, for telling the other stories.
Speaker 1 (41:44):
It is so.
Speaker 3 (41:45):
Critically important to raise public awareness of these wrongful convictions.
We have the best criminal justice system in the world,
but it is run by human being, and human beings
are flawed. They make mistakes, they at times act intentionally maliciously.
(42:10):
When that happens, it takes enormous resources to get the
system back on track, and so few people are able
to afford those resources or are given those resources. So
what has to happen is everybody involved in the system. Prosecutors, judges,
(42:34):
jurors have to have an open mind. They have to
be persons of goodwill. We as citizens have to hold
them accountable that their jobs are not to get convictions,
their jobs are to do justice, and we have to
(42:57):
insist on that. We have to enter that jury box
as citizens, giving credence to the presumption of innocence that
our constitution requires. They're not words. They are a critical concept.
But if we don't pay attention to it, if we
don't honor it, then wonderful people like Christine will have
(43:21):
their lives robbed from them, losing decades that nobody can
give back to them. And so this is a call
to action. We have to be more active, we have
to be more responsible. We have to be accountable and
(43:43):
make sure that everybody in the system is accountable.
Speaker 4 (43:48):
Christine, when I go speak to the community and tell
them how they can help with j for Jay, or
how they can help the Innocence Project, or how they
can step up and make changes within our system.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
Because it is a great system.
Speaker 4 (44:06):
It is designed to work, and we have to take
responsibility and make sure it works.
Speaker 2 (44:13):
So I know that everybody is sitting.
Speaker 4 (44:15):
There saying I don't have money to donate, but everybody
does have.
Speaker 2 (44:20):
To step up and say I have something to give here.
Speaker 4 (44:23):
I can vote, I can educate myself so that when
I'm sitting on a jury, I know what I'm listening
to because the CSI you watch on TV that's not
always accurate. So really learning about these issues, really raising
your voice and.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
Saying you know, we need to change some things that's
how we make the world better.
Speaker 6 (44:47):
And I encourage all of you to learn about this
and figure out if you can help by voting, by
sharing our stories, by talking to an axonary, by just
being there.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Don't forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you
get your podcasts. It really helps. And I'm a proud
donor to the Innocence Project, and I really hope you'll
join me in supporting this very important cause and helping
to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocenceproject dot org
to learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like
to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis.
(45:28):
The music in the show is by three time OSCAR
nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast.
Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flahm is a production of Lava
for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number one
In the summer of nineteen ninety five, twenty one year
old single mom Christine Bunch was living in a trailer
in Greensburg, Indiana, with her three year old son Tony.
In the early morning hours of July thirtieth, an electrical
fire began between the roof and the ceiling tiles. When
the fire caused one of the ceiling tiles to fall
in Tony's bedroom, a cloud of carbon monoxide gas killed
(00:24):
the little boy before the fire even could. Christine awoke
in a carbon monoxide haze, desperately trying to save Tony.
After failed attempts at extinguishing the fire, she ran for help.
Then she smashed Tony's bedroom window, but it was too late.
She was barefoot, homeless, and deep in despair. Arson investigator
(00:47):
Brian Frank used what is widely now known as junk
science to point the blame for Tony's death squarely at Christine.
So six days after losing her three year old boy
and nearly everything she ever had, Christine lost her freedom
as well. With no potential alibi or eyewitnesses, the state
easily sealed Christine's fate with the testimony of Brian Frank
(01:11):
and ATF forensic analyst William Cannard. Christine gave birth to
her son, Trent, just a few months after being sent
to prison and a decade passed before her attorney and
a team from the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern
University uncovered an egregious Brady violation and blatantly false testimony,
freeing Christine after seventeen years, one month, and sixteen days
(01:35):
behind bars. This is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flauber. Welcome
(01:55):
back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason flaum That's me, of course,
and today you're going to hear story that's as heartbreaking
and tragic as it was preventable, and it's a remarkable
look inside the systemic flaws as well as human errors
that lead to wrongful convictions. And in this particular case,
we're going to be telling the story and hearing the
(02:16):
story of one of my absolute favorite human beings, a
personal hero of mine, who is doing amazing, amazing things
in the world right now, today and every day. And
so I am thrilled and honored to have with us
on the show today, Christine.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Bunch, Thank you so much. I'm happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
And with Christine as someone whose name you'll probably recognize,
Ron Safer. Ron is a former US attorney turned corporate
lawyer turned justice fighter, and you'll recognize him because he
was a huge part of the exoneration of Julie Ray,
an episode that I'll never forget, and I hope if
you haven't heard it, that you'll go back and take
(02:56):
a listen. Anyway, Ron, welcome.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Back to be here. Thank you, Jason.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
So let's get right into it. Christine, you grew up
in Indiana, right, I did.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Things took a crazy turn when my parents divorced, but
for the most part I was happy and it was good.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Now at the time of this unimaginable tragedy, you were
just a young mother living in a trailer, working hard,
going to school, just starting your life, just twenty one
years old, right.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
That's correct.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
I was working and going to school, and I had
a beautiful three year old son named Tony.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
And then the worst nightmare that any parent can possibly
have or wake up to in a cold sweat, and
some of us probably have had that experience, but it
actually happened to you. And Ron, can you tell us
about that awful morning of June thirtieth, nineteen ninety five.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
What happened was Christine and Tony had gone to sleep
together on a couch in the living room area of
the trailer. Before Christine woke up, Tony had moved to
the front room, which was a separate room from the
living room. Christine awoke to a sound and a small fire.
(04:18):
She was disoriented, but she saw the small fire and
she tried to put it out with a pillow and
couldn't do that, so she tried to smother the fire
with a blanket, and that didn't work either. Carbon monoxide
(04:38):
is intoxicating. Christine was undoubtedly affected by this carbon monoxide.
She's trying to put out the fire. She can't find
the fire extinguisher. She knows where the fire extinguisher is,
she can't find it. So by that time, the fire
had grown into a wall her and Tony, and she
(05:01):
could not get to him. So she frantically went out
of the trailer, tried to get help, and then tried
to break the window into the front room so that
she could get to Tony, but it was too late,
and Tony had perished.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
It's impossible to even conceive of the horror and the
panic in a time like that, Even if you didn't
have kids like waking up to a fire. Christine, what
are your memories of that awful night now twenty five
years ago.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I think the thing that sits with me the most
is it was just normal.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
I came home from school, and I got Tony from
the babysitter, and we went home and we cooked, and
I think we watched some TV and did some laundry,
and we fell asleep. I'd read him a story and
he wasn't feeling really well, and we fell asleep on
the couch under the air conditioner.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
And everything just seemed normal.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
You didn't realize that you were going to wake up
in your whole world would be turned upside down.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
I mean, your whole world was really destroyed at a
time when the community and the system should have been
coming to help you in every conceivable way. Instead, you
were exposed to and victimized by the worst that the
system and our society has to offer. And it's so
(06:33):
important that you're here now because this arson quote unquote
science that they used in order to frame you and
wrongfully convict you for a crime that never even happened
is something that we need to focus on because we
need awareness among everyone, because someday, you, the listener, may
find yourself on a jury and you may be presented
(06:56):
with this same sort of junk science.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Fire investigation was an apprentice art. There were what was
regarded as common knowledge and industry standards that were passed
down from generation to generation. Virtually none of those conventional
wisdom were true, and when tested by scientific principles, they
(07:25):
were all debunked. Unfortunately, that came too late for Christine.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
And this starts with a fire investigator named Brian Frank.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
So what Frank did was the day of this fire,
and keep in mind this trailer was completely incinerated. He
comes into the trailer and just plucks things out of
thin air. He says, Oh, this is a burn pattern
(07:56):
on the floor. That's evidence of a liquid with the
accelerant like gasoline. Ooh, there's a V pattern on the wall.
That is fire burns up in a V pattern. And therefore,
because there are two of these, there were two points
(08:16):
of origin. A normal accidental fire will have one point
of origin. Sometimes if a fire is intentionally set, it
will have two points of origin. Says oops, here the
fire burned down. That is a sign of a liquid accelerant.
For all of these reasons, I conclude this was not
(08:40):
an accidental fire. This was intentionally set because, as you
said at the beginning, Jason, unlike many crimes like a
robbery or a fraud or a murder, the question in
an arson is was a crime even committed? And upon
that threshold question rests the lives of hundreds of people,
(09:04):
including Christine.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Here's what's absolutely nuts is that to become a licensed
arson investigator, one who can testify in court, you can
take a forty hour correspondence course. It takes fifteen hundred
hours in some places to become a manicurist. You can't
get a barber's license in less than six months. The
(09:27):
idea that they've been relying on these charlatans you'd be
better off consulting with psychics or even just guessing. And
in Christine's case, there are so many other problems. Right,
there's a tunnel vision with holding of sculpatory evidence, there's
multiple incompetent investigators who pass themselves off as experts, and
then it goes downhill from there. So there you are
(09:50):
outside the house and in minutes, in moments, your life
has gone from a good life full of love and
hope to the worst imaginable scenario.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
You're just in shock and you don't really believe what
people are telling you because they kept telling me, no,
you can't go in and know we couldn't get hit
him and know he's not alive.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
And of course, as apparent, you don't want to believe that.
People on the outside want to look at.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
It and say, well, if this was done differently, or
if you had acted this way. And I mean, for myself,
I have played it over and over and over and
over again in my mind. I still every day that
I wake up play it over in my mind, and
(10:43):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Know how to come up with a different scenario. When
you're in that.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
Moment and the terror paralyzes you, you don't know what
you would do. So it's easy to stand outside and
say this should have never happen, and somebody has to
be blamed.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Right, because the alternative is incomprehensible to most people, why
an innocent baby would be taken from us. Christine, six
days in hell, right, six days for you between the
fire and the loss of your child and the time
that you're arrested. What were those six days like? What
(11:24):
were you doing.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
I went with my parents to.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Plan a funeral, and my mom and dad really went
through how the service was going to be, and I
just remember sitting there and crying, and then I told
him that I wanted a song played something that I,
you know, sang with Tony, and he said, we can
(11:51):
play whatever you want, and then I had to go
get clothes.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
To her to a funeral.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
At that time, I was still walking around barefoot because
I'd literally lost everything, and everybody was trying to comfort
you and give you advice, and it.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Just doesn't comfort you. So you feel more alone than
ever because you don't want to hurt their.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Feelings, but everything they're saying to you doesn't penetrate.
Speaker 5 (12:27):
The police didn't help because they followed me everywhere I
went and talked to everybody after I left, and they
even showed up and my son's funeral and burial.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
They came to me before I even got out of
the hospital and told me that it was an arson.
They literally wanted a list of all my family and friends,
anybody that could have possibly done it.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Then they come back to me and say, no, you're
you're the person. You're under arrest for this, and in
a small town.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
Once they make or and arrest and put a headline
on the paper in a small community, in that community's mind,
you're guilty.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
So now you're arrested. How long were you held before
the trial? Were you able to bail out?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
I was in there from July sixth to October mid October,
I bonded out on a fifty thousand dollars cash bond.
I tell my son Trent all the time that he's
the miracle that saved me. But when I got out,
I certainly didn't care if I lived or died, and
(13:41):
so I was drinking and doing a lot of self
medicating because I just didn't want to feel anymore. And
in the midst of that, I started getting sick and
that's when I discovered I was pregnant.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Yeah, and that's the worst possible scenario. Although now, as
you said, it turns out to be the thing that
saved you. And we'll get into more of that later.
But Ron, this trial is full of I mean again,
it's horseshit. The stuff that they were spewing from the stand.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
It began with the prosecutor standing in front of the
jury and saying motive is not an element of the crime.
We don't have to prove motive. People tend not to
commit crimes for no reason. And of course they investigated
Christine and her motive for this crime, and they found
(14:42):
that she was a good, loving, carrying, wonderful mother and
that she and Tony had a beautiful relationship. Everybody said
that universally, and so they're left with telling the jury, Okay,
Christine committed this horrific crime for no reason, but we
(15:06):
don't have to prove motive. Then their case depended one
hundred percent on this quote unquote expert testimony, because Christine
didn't set this fire, so of course nobody saw her
set the fire, nobody saw her prepare to set the fire,
(15:26):
nobody's heard her talk about setting the fire, nobody afterwards.
There was no physical evidence, no forensic evidence, nothing. Of course,
the trailer wasn't insured, she lost all of her possessions,
she lost, of course, the person who meant most to
her in the world. So they were left with this
(15:47):
expert testimony, these absurd fire investigation myths, which should have
and could have been dispelled by a defense atturn or
competent defense expert. But there was something else that was
critical in this trial that would have been difficult for
(16:09):
a defense attorney to combat.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
And I have to tell the audience that this critical
evidence becomes just as important later to prove in Christine's
innocence as it was in getting her convicted. But go ahead, Ron.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
They took ten samples from the trailer, from the floor
of the trailer, from the carpet of the trailer, from
Christine's nightgown, and they tested it for various accelerants. There
was no gasoline. There was no inflammatory substance of any
(16:41):
kind on Christine's nightgown, even though they said that she
would splash this accelerant all around. But there were two
positive samples. And those samples, by the way, were given
to the Bureau of Alcohol to back on firearms atf
who federally investigates arson crimes and they have special laboratories,
(17:05):
and they did gas chromatography on these samples, and they
presented evidence at trial that there were two positive tests
for what they called a heavy petroleum distillant like jet
fuel or something else specifically not kerosene, and that was
(17:31):
found in the living room area and critically in the
front room, the room where Tony was found now there
is reason for there to be kerosene in the living
room because the prior owners of this trailer testified that
they had a kerosene heater and that they overfilled it
(17:53):
from time to time. Kerosene does not evaporate, and so
even from years before, there would be kerosene in the wood.
But there's no explanation for a heavy petroleum distolate like
jet fuel. And there is absolutely no innocent explanation for
there to be a heavy petroleum distolate in the front
(18:16):
room Tony's bedroom. And that was critical evidence that was
not refuted by the defense attorney. And on the strength
of that expert testimony of end these critical lab determinations,
Christine was convicted.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
March fourth, nineteen ninety six, twenty two years old. Pregnant,
Christine is convicted of arson and murder. Less than a
month later, she's sentenced to two concurrent terms, sixty years
for murder and fifty years for arson. So how pregnant
were you, Christine at the time of this wrongful conviction
(18:57):
And what the hell was it like giving birth behind ball?
Speaker 2 (19:02):
I was almost six months pregnant.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
The only thing they don't do to pregnant women is
make them wear the belly chain and the box because
the baby's not a prisoner. But with so many pregnant
women in there, you don't always get soft cuffs for
your feet. So I've got deep scars on the back
of my ankles from wearing those metal shackles. And then
(19:33):
when I finally went into labor, I didn't really know
that I was in labor because I was just having
a backache. So they took me to the infirmary and
couldn't find a heartbeat.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
I lost it.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
I started, you know, screaming at him, and so I
was handcuffed.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
And shackle and taken out into an ambulance.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
And when I got to the hospital, a doctor come
in and explained that I was having contractions and that's
why they could here the heartbeat. They determined that I
was going to have an emergency c section, so they
had cuffs and shackles came off, and I got a
metal cuff on my ankle in the log chain.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
I got about thirty six hours with Trent.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
And then I was transferred back to the facility and
my family took him home.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
The Pacers Foundation is a proud supporter of this episode
of Rawfuel Conviction and of the Last Mile organization, which
provides business and tech training to help incarcerated individuals successfully
and permanently re enter the workforce. The Pacers Foundation is
committed to improving the lives of Hoosiers across Indiana, supporting
organizations that are dedicated primarily to helping young people and students.
(20:51):
For more information on the work of the Pacers Foundation
or the Last Mile Program, visit Pacersfoundation dot org or
the Lastmile dot org. This episode is sponsored by AIG,
a leading global insurance company, and Paul Weiss Rifkin, Wharton
and Garrison, a leading international law firm. The AIG pro
(21:12):
Bono Program provides free legal services and other support to
many nonprofit organizations and individuals most in need, and recently
they announced that working to reform the criminal justice system
will become a key pillar of the program's mission. Paul
Weiss has long had an unwavering commitment to providing impactful
pro bono legal assistance to the most vulnerable members of
(21:34):
our society and in support of the public interest, including
extensive work in the criminal justice area. So the good
news is that there is actually an equal or greater
number of heroes in this story. Than villains Betsy Marx,
(21:55):
Hillary po Rix, Jamie McAllister, and the other two actual
fire science to John Dehan and John Maluley, plus the
electrical engineer Richard Hanson. Then Karen Daniel and Jane Raley,
legends in the field were on your side. And of
course Ron himself, Ron Safer, I mean, the fucking cavalry
(22:17):
came in on this one, right. Can you talk now
about the process that led seventeen years later to Christine
finally coming home.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Yes, Christine pursued this tirelessly against all odds. Found a
wonderful local attorney, Hillary bo Rix, who believed in Christine
but really did not have the resources to take on
the awesome power of the state, and a supporter of Christine.
(22:47):
Wrote a letter to Northwestern Center on Wrongful Convictions, and
Jane Rayley, along with Karen Daniel, took Christine's case and
they disassembled every piece of evidence the state put forward.
Karen and Jane assembled the world's experts on fire science,
(23:09):
not the myths of arson investigation, but on fire science
to prove first that everything the state said was wrong,
and then second that Christine was innocent, not beyond a
reasonable doubt. Beyond any doubt. So first they got a
former ATF agent and he testified that every one of
(23:34):
the myths that was used by the so called arson
investigator Brian Frank was wrong. A V pattern does not
indicate a point of origin. It indicates a point where
something burned against a wall. Fire burns down not because
of the liquid accelerant, but because it's seeking oxygen and
(23:55):
there was a hole in the trailer. So the burn
patterns that Frank says indicated that there was a liquid
accelerant have been disproved. Brian Frank said that the fire
was hotter because a liquid accelerant was used. That is
a myth. Controlled experiments prove that fire is no hotter. Indeed,
(24:17):
the heat depends on what is being burnt. So chemistry
physics disproved every one of the pieces of evidence. But
there was one more critical thing that Karen Daniel did
that was pivotal. She subpoened the underlying test data that
(24:38):
had been used by the ATF lab and all of
the documents related to those tests, and what that found
was stunning. First, she got the actual gas chromatographs, so
the actual tests, and contrary to his testimony, he did
(24:59):
test against the standard of kerosene, not a heavy dissolute,
but kerosene. Then when you look at those actual test data,
you find that, yes, there was kerosene in the living
room where the kerosene heater had been years before. But
then you look at the sample from Tony's bedroom, the
(25:20):
sample that convicted Christine, and the test was negative for
any liquid accelerate, kerosene, heavy petroleum distillate, nothing. What's more,
in that file, there was a draft report that reflected
(25:42):
accurately the test results, that is, that there had been
kerosene in the living room and that the sample in
Tony's bedroom was negative. And then there was a report
that in handwriting that crossed that out and made that
test result positive. How that happened, unfortunately, we'll never know
(26:05):
because by the time we got to the hearing, the
ATF agent, who is now deceased, was incompetent in an
assisted living home and could not testify about what happened.
But what was clear was Christine was convicted based on
(26:25):
not only faulty but false evidence. So that takes care
of the States case.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
So Christine's team exposed the junk science and the outright
falsification of the real scientific data that led to our conviction.
And by the way, these are your tax dollars at work.
And if you don't think this could happen to you, well,
don't even get me started. There's more to this, and
I'm talking about with the defenses. Expert Jamie McAllister testified
to about how the fire really started.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Jamie McAllister, who is an expert in examining the victim's
chemistry and reverse engineering how a fire must have started,
testified about how this fire started. Tony died before the
fire got hot. He died of carbon monoxide poisoning. There
(27:17):
was no burning in his trachea, no burning in his lungs,
and so he had stopped breathing before the fire got hot.
His carboxy hemoglobin rate, which is what we referred to
as carbon monoxide poisoning. It's when the carbon monoxide bonds
with your blood. The hemoglobin was eighty percent. Fifty percent
(27:41):
is lethal. So how did it get that high? Well,
Jamie McAllister testifies that controlled experiment show that if the
fire had started out in the open air of the
living room or the bedroom, it would have produced a
lot of carbon die oxide. Two oxygen molecules. Because there's
(28:03):
a lot of air floating around and very little carbon
monoxide one oxygen molecule, it would have taken ninety minutes
for the fire to have produced enough carbon monoxide for
Tony to have gotten to a carboxy hemoglobin rate approaching
(28:23):
eighty percent. He would have burned to death long before that,
and of course his lungs and everything else would have burned.
That didn't happen. So how did this fire happen? Well,
as an electrician testified, there were electrical wires that were
overloaded that ran between the roof and the drop down
(28:48):
ceiling tiles. There was an electrical fire that started that morning.
But because there's limited oxygen there, what happens is the
fire smolders and produces a lot of carbon monoxide up
in the ceiling. Now, eventually the fire gets hot enough
(29:09):
so that one of the ceiling tiles burns and drops
to the floor. That undoubtedly is what Christine awakens to. Now,
when that happens, the carbon monoxide fills the Tony's room
like a balloon that is letting out its air. Physical
tests and chemical tests prove within minutes he dies of
(29:33):
carbon monoxide poisoning. That's how this fire had to have happened.
And thus, not only was there no evidence that Christine
was guilty of an arson, there was conclusive evidence that
the fire was an accidental fire that took place in
(29:53):
the confined area of the ceiling, and that Tony died
as everybody knew, of carbon monoxide poisoning.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
But in spite of all of this, on June eighth
of twenty ten, now over fourteen years after your conviction,
Judge Weshoffer denied you a new trial. He said, quote,
While and this is a quote, while mss Bunch had
new resources available to her at the post conviction hearing,
new experts do not create new evidence. The issues raised
(30:25):
and the conclusions reached, while packaged differently, remained basically the
same as they were at trial in nineteen ninety six
end quote. He went on to add that he did
not believe the ATF documents would have changed the outcome
of the trial. And I mean it was exposed that
they falsified the findings and said the samples were positive
(30:46):
when they weren't. What the actual fuck like And this again,
if you don't think this can happen to you and
I'm talking to the audience now, of course you're wrong.
A very large percentage of judges are elected and the
others are appointed by elected officials. Either way, your decisions
in the voting booth are going to determine who ends
(31:08):
up on the bench. So and of my rant, back
to the story. Meanwhile, another Indianapolis lawyer joins the team,
John Larimore, And then we get to the good stuff.
Right on July thirteenth, twenty eleven, Ron who's here with
us now, argued in front of a three member panel
of the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
At the argument itself, it was very clear from the
questioning of the judges that one judge was dead set
against us. There was nothing I was going to be
able to say to change his mind. One judge was
for us, and no matter how incoherently I babbled, he
was going to vote for us. And so the middle judge,
(31:52):
the chief judge, held Christine's fate in her hand. Our
working theory and it made sense, said, if the court
was going to reverse this conviction, they would have done
it right away because they know she's sitting in jail.
So we're sitting there understanding that The longer this goes on,
(32:12):
the more likely it is we lost. As time wore on,
despair grew.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
And eight of what must have been truly agonizing. Months later, Christine,
on March twenty first of twenty twelve, in a two
to one decision, the panel reversed the conviction and granted
you a new trial, citing the evolution of fire science,
as well as the fact that sculpatory evidence was withheld
(32:40):
that quote unquote directly contradicted ATF forensic analyst William Kinnard's
trial testimony. Christine, how did you find out about this
momentous decision?
Speaker 4 (32:52):
I got a call to come to the counselor's office
and my lawyers were on the phone to.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Tell me that they had reversed my conviction and remanded
for a new trial.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
I started crying, and I asked them if they called
my son.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
I wanted him to know that I won and I
was going.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
To come home, and so they assured me that yes,
they were calling him, and I ended up. I stayed
in the counselor's office for like an hour and a
half because I head back to back calls, and she said,
you know, she said, we're just going to make this
your day, so everybody can call and congratulate you and
(33:31):
tell you the news, and they were just so happy
for me.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Ron. What about you? What's your recollection of that phone call?
Speaker 3 (33:39):
I cared beyond measure about Christine in this case and
getting her out of jail, and when it ultimately happened,
it was as if it was happening to my sister.
Just the most moving experience. Although the reality comes home
of Okay, she's not at a jail, she gets a
(34:02):
new trial, is she's still sitting in jail. We got
to get her out of jail.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
So almost five months go by after March twenty first,
twenty twelve and the amazing phone call, all the way
to August eighth, when the Indiana Supreme Court left the
Appellate Court's decision undisturbed. And then finally about a month
after that, September one, twenty twelve, seventeen years, one month
and sixteen days after you were arrested, Christine, you were
(34:31):
finally released into the arms of your family. What was
that like?
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Well, I mean when you first walk out, I think
all you're looking at is the dream finally happened.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
And I have so many possibilities.
Speaker 4 (34:46):
After that initial who wears off, then you're left.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
With all of these fears and insecurities.
Speaker 4 (34:57):
It was great walking out and seeing everyone, but then
you know, I'm facing another murder trial, so we have
to start preparing for that. And I have, you know,
my son, who I have to provide a home for,
and I have to make sure that he has everything
(35:17):
he needs. He's just sixteen, so I don't have a
driver's license, I don't have any kind of ID, I
don't have renter's history, credit score, all of these things.
I don't even know where I'm going to get a
job after seventeen years. So fear starts to take you over,
and I think that At first I was just like,
(35:39):
I'm not going.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
To make it. There's no way I'm going to be
able to make it.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
And that first night, my son was showing me on
his laptop how to set up a Facebook account, and
while I'm looking at it, I see that he has
the Appellate Court site bookmarked, and I said, why do
you have that? And he looked at me and he said,
because I checked every day to see if they made
(36:05):
a decision, and you.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Were coming home, and I started crying.
Speaker 4 (36:11):
And I said, you know, I said, I've been so
worried and so unsure, but.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
Hearing that you believed in me and we're just waiting
for me to come home. I can make it through anything.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
Then another and a long line of amazing developments in
your case happened just before Christmas, which must have made
that time of year even sweeter. The prosecution finally came
around to their senses and dropped the charges, which brings
us to your next struggle, compensation for all that lost time.
And of course no amount of money can be enough
(36:55):
to repay what you lost, but you had an uphill
battle and a unique struggle to even get compensation. Can
you fill us in on that.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Yes, So, like everyone, I filed a civil suit.
Speaker 4 (37:07):
Clearly people are protected, so you have to break through
immunity to try to sue. The issue is the ATF
chemist is deceased, so I didn't have a leg to
stand on, and that was ultimately dismissed.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Compensation.
Speaker 4 (37:24):
I have been working since I've been out, and well,
I've helped pass new legislation in three different states working
with the Innocence Project. This past year we passed compensation
in Indiana and then when my civil suit was dismissed,
I applied for the compensation. You know, it was I think,
(37:46):
very surreal to receive a letter from them saying that
just because my conviction was reversed and I wasn't retried
did not mean that I was actually innocent, and it really,
I mean it hurt my feeling. Is because I testified
before these legislators three separate occasions. The senators and representatives
(38:08):
that passed this bill used my case to pass this
compensation bill, and then you're going to basically retry me
all over again.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
So are they really trying to relitigate this case?
Speaker 2 (38:21):
No, they are not.
Speaker 4 (38:23):
But as you go through the process, you fill out
a compensation application and then they review it. So for them,
they reached out to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor said,
you know, no, we didn't have evidence at the time
to retry this, but you know, we aren't going to
say we made a mistake. They never want to say
(38:44):
they made a mistake.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
So I had.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
To reach out to everyone I knew, the Center on
Wrongful Convictions with you know, the amazing Laura and I
writer and Steve Drisen, Ron Safer and all of them
wrote letters and admitted the evidence that was used to
exonerate me in order to show them that I am
innocent and worthy of this conversation.
Speaker 2 (39:09):
Twenty five years after the fact.
Speaker 4 (39:12):
They are reviewing the application. They've been reviewing it since November.
Speaker 1 (39:17):
Yeah, well, let's hope they come to their senses and
come to the right decision, because I think the right
thing to do is clear to everyone who's listening and
to anyone with a heart and a soul. So let's
get to what you're doing now. You started an organization
called just Is for just Us.
Speaker 4 (39:34):
Just is just like it sounds because the situation just is,
and then it's for just us, which means all of
us exoneries. Justice for just Us was started by myself
and another exonery that came from the Center on Wrongful
Convictions and Juan and I just basically wanted to address
(39:55):
what it was like because when people walk out, you
don't have a toothbrush, you don't have the basic necessities.
So j for JA for short. You know, we're helping
with boxes. If somebody reaches out and says, hey, I
need an outfit and I need basic hygiens, we put
that together. We've helped take some axonneries to the Innocence conference,
(40:15):
sent out gas cards, cash cards, We've paid rent, we've
paid bills, and our organization allows healthcare providers to donate
services so they can get a dental visit or some
counseling sessions or a physical things that are desperately needed
when you return.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
It's such an important thing, you know. I've tried to
devote myself to doing as much as I can to
help people coming out of the system, because it's exactly
as you described. It's like I call it the second punishment.
And what I mean by that is most people coming
out have no support whatsoever. They may get forty dollars
and a bus ticket and then you know, not even
(40:56):
a good luck. So there are a number of wonderful
organis stations doing this work, and I encourage everyone to
support just is for just Us. So please everyone scroll
down on the episode description and get involved with just
Is for just Us. And now this is the part
of the show, of course that we call closing arguments.
(41:17):
So first of all, thank you to our phenomenal guest today.
The closing argument segment works like this, I turn off
my microphone, kick back on my chair, leave my headphones on.
Sometimes I close my eyes, and we're going to let
each of you have the final word on whatever you
want to talk about. So let's go to Ron first
and then Christine you can just take us out.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
Well, first of all, thanks so much Jason for telling
this story, for telling the other stories.
Speaker 1 (41:44):
It is so.
Speaker 3 (41:45):
Critically important to raise public awareness of these wrongful convictions.
We have the best criminal justice system in the world,
but it is run by human being, and human beings
are flawed. They make mistakes, they at times act intentionally maliciously.
(42:10):
When that happens, it takes enormous resources to get the
system back on track, and so few people are able
to afford those resources or are given those resources. So
what has to happen is everybody involved in the system. Prosecutors, judges,
(42:34):
jurors have to have an open mind. They have to
be persons of goodwill. We as citizens have to hold
them accountable that their jobs are not to get convictions,
their jobs are to do justice, and we have to
(42:57):
insist on that. We have to enter that jury box
as citizens, giving credence to the presumption of innocence that
our constitution requires. They're not words. They are a critical concept.
But if we don't pay attention to it, if we
don't honor it, then wonderful people like Christine will have
(43:21):
their lives robbed from them, losing decades that nobody can
give back to them. And so this is a call
to action. We have to be more active, we have
to be more responsible. We have to be accountable and
(43:43):
make sure that everybody in the system is accountable.
Speaker 4 (43:48):
Christine, when I go speak to the community and tell
them how they can help with j for Jay, or
how they can help the Innocence Project, or how they
can step up and make changes within our system.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
Because it is a great system.
Speaker 4 (44:06):
It is designed to work, and we have to take
responsibility and make sure it works.
Speaker 2 (44:13):
So I know that everybody is sitting.
Speaker 4 (44:15):
There saying I don't have money to donate, but everybody
does have.
Speaker 2 (44:20):
To step up and say I have something to give here.
Speaker 4 (44:23):
I can vote, I can educate myself so that when
I'm sitting on a jury, I know what I'm listening
to because the CSI you watch on TV that's not
always accurate. So really learning about these issues, really raising
your voice and.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
Saying you know, we need to change some things that's
how we make the world better.
Speaker 6 (44:47):
And I encourage all of you to learn about this
and figure out if you can help by voting, by
sharing our stories, by talking to an axonary, by just
being there.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Don't forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you
get your podcasts. It really helps. And I'm a proud
donor to the Innocence Project, and I really hope you'll
join me in supporting this very important cause and helping
to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocenceproject dot org
to learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like
to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis.
(45:28):
The music in the show is by three time OSCAR
nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast.
Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flahm is a production of Lava
for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number one
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.