Greensburg — A local woman convicted of the murder of her then 3-year-old son in 1996 was denied in her bid for a retrial.

In late October of 2009, the case, put to rest in 1996, was brought back to life through the work of a legion of lawyers backed by Northwestern University's Center for Wrongful Conviction. Led by Ron Safer of Chicago and Hillary Ricks of Indianapolis, the lawyers sought to produce new scientific evidence into the fire investigation they said led to the conviction of Kristine Bunch, then 21, in the murder of her son, Anthony Maxwell Bunch.

After months of review however, Circuit Court Judge John Westhafer did not feel the defense produced enough evidence to warrant a retrial. He denied the request citing no new evidence was presented. The lawyers filed an appeal on July 8, which is still pending.

In his decision, issued June 8, Westhafer noted the lawyers for Bunch had "not introduced or presented any new factual evidence or physical evidence discovered since the Petitioner"s trial in 1996," the report states. "(T)he petitioner introduced only opinion evidence."

The decision detailed his reasons for the denial. One of the main reasons cited, the report states, is the lawyers in this case presented four experts meant to prove new science and crime scene methods had been developed that would have resulted in a different outcome for Bunch if presented before a jury. However, each expert presented in October came up with the same cause "undetermined" conclusion as the defense's original expert in 1996.

"While (Bunch) had new resources available to her at the post-conviction hearing, new experts do not create new evidence. The issues raised and the conclusions reached - while packaged differently - remain basically the same as they were at trial in 1996," Westhafer wrote in his decision.

Furthermore, he noted arguments about the investigation quality, existence of kerosene in the floor samples with 'innocent' explanations and a potential electrical cause were all presented at the original trial and in subsequent appeals.

Westhafer also took issue with one of the experts in the hearing, Jamie McAllister, who testified under protest by the state. He noted her testimony caused him to "seriously question whether McAllister's testimony is admissible at a trial." She noted in October her work was "cutting edge" and "state-of-the-art," however, the report states, she did not present any evidence her work was widely accepted and her statements led to contradictions.

Westhafer also noted in his decision, the defense in this retrial hearing never disputed the other elements of the case. In detail, the report outlines Bunch's inconsistent statements used in the original 1996 trial. She told investigators several different versions, according to the report, of what transpired when the fire broke out. She told investigators the child always slept with her and never got up at night. However, he was in a different bedroom, where the fire broke out. She also told investigators - on separate occasions - Anthony was behind a locked door, that she was in the bedroom with him and she could see him from the living as the fire raged. The report notes no door ever existed and adds that evidence "an item of furniture was at or near the bedroom door as an obstruction or possible obstruction to the child's escape" went undisputed.

"The conflicting and sometimes contradictory statements of (Bunch) presented at trial are not disputed and continue to create a significant inference of guilt. Her statements and actions as described and presented at trial create an inference that (Bunch) intentionally started a fire in her mobile home that killed her child," the report states.

The 47-page report details several other facts and evidence in the original trial that also went undisputed or were not discussed by Ricks, Safer or Bunch at the October hearing.

While Bunch still has a chance at the appeal, which is pending, it is likely she will remain in state prison where she is serving out a 60-year sentence.