[UGAalum94]

Am I missing something in the article?

I don't see anything that actually proves the guy's innocence, just something that suggests that forensic evidence might have been more faulty than previously thought.

It may create doubt for us, but maybe less so for the jury, since we don't really know why they convicted. We also don't know, based on anything we read here, I don't think, that the guy didn't start the fire and leave it to burn, even if he didn't use an accelerant.

I have mixed feeling about the death penalty, but "proving innocence" after conviction seems kind of complicated. I don't have any sense what other evidence other than the forensics were part of the prosecution here. What motive do people ever have to kill their kids?