A case put to rest in 1996 was brought back to life Tuesday through the work of a legion of lawyers backed by Northwestern University’s Center for Wrongful Conviction.

A hearing began in Decatur County Circuit court Tuesday, the same arena where Kristine Bunch, then 21, was convicted of arson and murder in the death of her 3-year-old son, Anthony Bunch. In 1996, Prosecutor William O. Smith contended through evidence of fire investigators that Bunch set a fire and left her son to die inside the trailer they shared at Lake McCoy.

On Tuesday, a group of lawyers led by Ron Safer of Chicago and Hillary Ricks of Indianapolis sought to introduce new evidence found through scientific advancements in fire investigation to show the blaze that killed Anthony was accidental.

“We celebrate over the next two days a unique feature of our justice system, the right to a second chance,” Safer said in his opening statement. “We are not saying Kristine Bunch was railroaded into a conviction. We are not saying she was the victim of an overzealous prosecutor...We are saying the world has changed.”

Safer presented a litany of expert witnesses in the first day of the proceedings, including internationally recognized fire expert Dr. John DeHaan, who has written a widely accepted textbook on fire investigation. DeHaan contended that the investigation did not consider every area of accidental fire, including electrical failure. He also noted the samples of kerosene, which the state argued was the accelerant in the fire, were not telling signs of an intentional fire. The home at one time had a kerosene heater and some kerosene had been spilled in the living room, one of the areas that suffered the most severe burns. In the original trial, Smith pointed out in his cross-examination, the kerosene spill theory was visited. The heater was removed in 1987, and the fire occurred in June 1995. Smith noted by DeHaan’s own admission in the testimony, residuals would likely last only a few years. DeHaan also told Smith he ignored human behavior in his variables for an intentionally set fire because human testimony is “unreliable.”

DeHaan concluded in his affidavit and in open court that he concluded the cause of the fire was undetermined. Smith pointed out this was the same conclusion reached by the defense’s expert in the 1996 trial and felt the testimony was only being used to “impeach” the findings of fire investigators. DeHaan said he felt the initial investigation was not handled properly.

“This (investigation) does not meet the standard I would expect from a good fire investigation,” DeHaan said.

Another expert, Richard Hansen, said in his testimony that electrical factors weren’t even considered in the original case. For him, indicators of a possible electrical-based fire, such as a black mark on an outlet in the bedroom where Anthony died, were not properly examined by investigators. His assertion was based on review of depositions and trial records.

Smith noted several times in open court that the experts had merely presented interpretations of the evidence and had no knowledge of the original fire first-hand.

According to law, Smith said later, the burden of proof rests on the defense in the case. They need to prove that new evidence exists in order for the conviction to be overturned and a new trial held.

“This is really a legal argument,” Smith said after the hearing recessed for the day. “They’re saying she never should have been convicted at all. They’re saying they have new evidence to prove she is not guilty, and if we had this evidence back then, a jury would have never reached this conclusion.”

He said new science, such as DNA evidence, can come to light after the fact to change the outcome of a closed case. However, this instance was not new science, but a new method of investigation, he said, and he will wait to see how the hearing plays out.

The hearing continues today at 9 a.m., and is expected to conclude in the afternoon. Judge John Westhafer, who heard the case the first time, will then have a period of time to reach his decision after each attorney submits what they believe are the facts of the case.