Why the innocents…? “Trial by Fire” is an article by David Grann, who talks about Todd Willingham who was convicted of setting fires and killing his young children. This case received a lot of attention because there was evidence of his innocence. Grann showed that through his article in which he began by presenting the arson investigators' evidence in a convincing manner, by the time you get through the first section you will likely be convinced that Willingham was guilty. However, in the rest of the article we see Gilbert, a writer who agreed to help Willingham with his case, and Hurst, an experienced scientist who based the investigation on scientific grounds and the difference between their approaches and their arson information interoperations. investigators can have the effect of changing the way we think about the case. What led to Willingham's conviction and execution was an erroneous thought pattern coupled with the absence of scientific thinking. First, we see what scientific thinking looks like with Hurst. He played a unique role in proving that the conclusions of the arson investigators were invalid, namely that the fire was caused by an accelerant and that Willingham was guilty and that it was he who committed it, Vasqez and Fogg, fire investigators were so convinced and relying on the misconception that it was arson without even testing it, which is considered junk science and has no basis in reality. Hurst looked at the case from a scientific perspective. This was supported by what KCCole, a science writer, mentioned, that scientific knowledge and thinking improves the ability to see. Additionally, he looked at each piece, tested it and researched it, and the original investment... middle of paper ...... made a difference in the Willingham case. This is what Hurst showed he was able to falsify the findings of arson and prove it was not arson. However, there are many other factors. For example, such cases have been considered from different angles and questions should be raised about each piece of evidence. The lack of complexity and expectations contaminated by beliefs could have led to biases and unproven assumptions. Additionally, Gilbert's thoroughness showed the weaknesses of the initial investigation and the police by showing the importance of asking questions and being skeptical and not just believing what the experts tell you. However, the initial conclusions of investigators and police were affected by expectations and the belief that it was arson; even Willingham's lawyer did little to slow things down. This suggests the power of the shared idea that Willingham was guilty.