I know a lot of people think I started the fire that caused the loss of innocent lives. But the truth is—I did not start that fire that tragically took the lives of the Rivera’s. I proved that since my trial with the evidence presented at trial; and more recently I have obtained new evidence that proves that I did not, nor could not, have started that fire with 70 proof Captain Morgan™ Spiced Rum. I have presented my new evidence to the courts, but due to procedural bars and legal red-tape, they have refused to recognize it. I have appealed all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, but courts are not required to provide any reason for refusing to hear a case, especially when you have no representation. It’s just the way it is.
This is why I come before you now with the plea that someone, somewhere will look at this case with some pure, good-old fashion common sense. 70 proof Captain Morgan™ Spiced Rum is two/thirds water (33% alcohol by content). You can’t start a fire with water. Period!
Unfortunately, the most damning evidence used against me was my own confession. Otherwise, the prosecution had absolutely no physical evidence to convict me. Everything they presented at trial on one hand was refuted by their own evidence and witnesses on the other. Most of the State’s own evidence did not corroborate my confession.
But you’re wondering, “Why would anyone confess to a crime they didn’t commit?” The answer is the Reid Technique of interrogation. At trial, Fire Marshal Willard Preston touted his knowledge of this method of extracting confessions. The Reid Institute, based in Chicago, instructs law enforcement how to wrangle confessions out of suspects. John A. Reid was famous for his motto, “Don’t let the truth get in the way of a confession.” The psychological tactics employed are meant to break a person’s will. You will be convinced that up is down, left is right, day is night. You will say anything just to get out of that room. And, as in my case, most people go in fully confident of their innocence, completely unaware of what awaits them. [1]
One outstanding example of this is the case of the “Norfolk Four.” Four navy sailors were accused of a terrible crime—murder/rape. Police were able to twist confessions out of all four of them, despite there being no evidence of their involvement. In fact, one fellow even had evidence that he was hundreds of miles away–receipts, surveillance videos, etc. Another one had evidence that he was on the ship at the time. Regardless, they were convicted by a jury due to the weight that confessions carry, truthful or not. [2]
Let me point out, these weren’t imbeciles that police took advantage of. These were navy men, who had extensive military training. One was an MIT grad. Still, they succumbed to the pressures of the interrogations. They, just as I thought, “I’ll say anything right now and the truth will come out later.” But under certain circumstances, police techniques could wear down many who may initially believe in the power of their innocence, according to experts.
Finally, after more than thirteen years in prison, outgoing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine commuted their sentences. This was after mounting public pressure, not only from citizens and family, but from law enforcement as well. Even more tragically is the fact that while four innocent men were being railroaded to prison, the man who actually had committed the crime raped a fifteen year-old girl right down the street from the first crime scene.
Looking at my own confession—if I swear all day long I’m the man-in-the-moon, that doesn’t make it true. If anything, I’d probably be committed. So why if I confess to starting a fire with water, why is that believable? My new evidence proves that it’s impossible.
In fact, every single thing in my statement was first suggested to me by interrogators. Not one word was original. Moreover, according to the confession, after being prompted by interrogators, I was supposed to be out back of the apartment watching the fire rage out of control. But according to the testimony at trial of New Castle County Police Officer J. Wagenhoffer—he arrived literally seconds after the call, he just happened to be right there up the street. He testified that as soon as he pulled up he saw two people coming out of the building, me and Darlene Hamby. Then he saw Hamby’s kids come out. This is completely in contradiction to the statement I gave, the statement Darlene Hamby gave, and the prosecution’s theory of the case. [3]
So how did this fire start? Well, it has never been disputed that the fire started in our apartment. That exact same stove burner had caught on fire the week before and the maintenance man was supposed to look at it the following week. Unfortunately, the maintenance man was Steve Rivera, who perished in the fire.
In criminal law there is what is known as “excited utterance.” In other words, people tend to blurt things out when excited or upset. Slam your finger in a drawer and see if the first words that come out of your mouth are not a true representation of how you feel. Though you may regret them later, they pretty well express your instant emotional response.
While police and fire marshals were interviewing witness at the scene, some interesting things came out. One woman interviewed said she was in the back of the ambulance with Darlene Hamby and asked her what happened. Ms. Hamby told her she had a grease fire and tried to put it out with water. [See Attachments] Another maintenance worker was interviewed by Fire Marshal William Bush in the incident van at the scene, and he said the same thing–that Darlene Hamby said she accidentally started the fire on the stove. [See the actual field notes of F.M. Bill Bush] Let me further clarify this right now: during trial, both Darlene Hamby and Jason Hamby testified that the flame they saw on the stove that night was yellow with a lot of black smoke. That’s a grease fire. Everyone knows that. Alcohol burns blue, not yellow.
Now you’re probably thinking that I’m trying to throw the blame on someone else. I can’t change the facts or what happened. It is what it is. I don’t want to see Darlene get in any trouble. Besides, it’s too late for that anyway. I just want someone to recognize that I didn’t do it— someone please have the courage to stand up and use a little common sense.
About the new evidence: it took me a long time to get this evidence because of being locked up. But I got one of the foremost fire investigators in the country, John Lentini, to test and see if 70 proof Captain Morgan™ Spiced Rum could catch fire on an electric stove. He duplicated the fire marshals’ theory of how the fire started—exactly. Three times he could not get the rum to ignite. [See Lentini Testburn Videos] Mr. Lentini is no slouch. He literally wrote the book on fire investigation that is used by fire marshals and investigators. [4] He could not get this stuff to burn. Three times! 70 proof Captain Morgan™ Spiced Rum will not start a fire. It’s two/thirds water.
You are going to hear a lot of righteous anger and victim outrage surrounding my case. And it’s understandable. People died and people want justice. But this case isn’t about arson. It’s about an apartment complex that was a known fire trap before this fire happened. In fact, you can check the records and see that Beaver Brook Apartments (always listed as “550 S. DuPont Hwy”) had been plagued with fires over the past couple of decades—up until the entire complex was gutted and renovated several years ago.
In fact, one of the Corrections Officers at Gander Hill confided to me that he was a volunteer fireman for Minquadale Fire Company and was at the scene that night. He said in all his experience as a firefighter, he’d never seen a building burn that hot or fast, especially a brick building. It was imperative for the county to divert everyone’s attention from the facts surrounding this fire-trap.[5] So, enter the scapegoat–Mark Kirk. Criminal record, known drinker, easy to convict. Who wouldn’t believe it? All it took was one wrangled confession and some media hype, which the local media was happy to jump on. The media fueled righteous anger and indignation [6], coupled with a Public Defender who was a team player, and a conviction was in the bag.
[5]See the News Journal, 12/5/1996
[6]There was also a lot of Victims Compensation money being thrown around, but only on the condition of a conviction.
I currently do not know of any precedent in Delaware for the granting of clemency for actual innocence (although there may well be some); but there is precedent in other states, as well as at the Federal level. The aforementioned "Norfolk Four" for instance. Also, Christopher Montgomery was pardoned by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on November 20, 2012 after spending 12 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit. The victim recanted her statement. However, courts do not recognize victim recantment, therefore, the courts refused to hear Montgomery’s case. His only remedy was to seek a clemency from the governor, who, fortunately saw through all the legal mumbo-jumbo and bureaucratic red-tape and granted a pardon.
Texas has also granted clemency in cases where there were no more judicial remedies available. So this is something that is being done. In fact, it protects States from any liability for wrongful convictions, because the sentences are commuted without the convictions being overturned. That’s all I’m asking—for someone to use some common sense and see that there's no way this fire started the way they say it did, and throw this wrongful case out. Thank you very much.