I read Jane Hamilton's essay. Let's start with the appeals process. Cameron Todd Willingham lost ten appeals and was executed. Yet several top arson investigators have said that there was no evidence of arson. Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only a chance occurrence revealed what really happened. Second, the investigation had several oversights. Not bringing in dogs trained in recognizing scents, among others. Based on arson investigation, I would take evidence canines as a kind of screening test, presumptive but not confirmatory. Third, the police and prosecution did things that I would question on ethical grounds. Fourth, count me as among those not particularly impressed with the quality of Luke Mitchell's defense. Fifth, the evidence is the evidence and if it leads to a suspect who happens to be within the victim's family, so be it. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. What one should not do is to close one's mind off to any one possibility.