Bill Amor

The entire time I was researching this case I thought about another case, that of Cameron “Todd” Willingham of Texas. Willingham was executed by the state of Texas in 2004 in the murders of his children that authorities say occurred when he set their home on fire. Even before his execution there were arguments that the “science” used to convict him was later found to be flawed and new advances had cast doubt on his guilt. However, the courts would not grant a reprieve and it has been argued that further studies were stopped so as to not legally prove that an innocent man was executed. Bill Amor thankfully was not sentenced to death in the murder of his mother in law and was given the right to prove his innocence.

We cannot be ignorant enough to believe that innocent people have not been executed. There have been too many people who were at one time on death row and later exonerated through DNA for us to conclude that prior to the science being available every condemned inmate was guilty. There have even been at least a few executed in the early 1900's that have been officially exonerated. But, for me, the Willingham case is too modern to have allowed this to happen. In the Bill Amor case when his conviction was overturned in 2017 it was said to be the first of its kind in Illinois where a new trial was granted based on advanced fire science. I find this conclusion to both be great, and sad because it has long been known that fire science used in courts had long been outdated.

On September 10, 1995 Bill Amor and his wife, Tina, left the home they shared with Tina's mother, Marianne Miceli in Naperville Illinois and headed to the drive-in to see a movie. Twenty minutes after they left a 911 call was made by Marianne to report her home was on fire and by all accounts she seemed to be trapped in her bedroom. Research indicates that within a minute of calling Marianne was overcome by smoke and by the time firefighters arrived she had died from smoke inhalation. Authorities immediately thought the fire to be suspicious because it was a fast and hot fire. They claimed there was no signs of accidental ignition.

It was said that Bill Amor became a suspect very fast. What was not said was exactly why he became such a fast suspect. Personally by reading through my research I believe this had to do with a few things. First, it seems that not a lot of people in Tina's family liked him. He was twenty-nine while she was eighteen. The two had began seeing each other four years earlier and had recently married and Bill had moved into the home with Marianne and Tina. Secondly, he was described by family as an unemployed alcoholic. That did not seem to sit well considering by all accounts Marianne was receiving disability for a physical issue as well as her bipolar disorder. She was living in a condominium owned by her brother and her sister handled her finances. But, most importantly, while it was not said who the “in-law” was, it was stated that one of his in-laws was a Naperville police officer.

It was not clear exactly when Bill Amor was arrested. Much of the information that is available on this case revolves around more recent things and the exoneration that eventually happened. Some of my research indicates that he was arrested some two weeks before he gave a confession to police officer. But it also appears that the investigation really seemed to take off after this confession, basically in an attempt to match the confession to the evidence. If he was already in custody when this confession was made I am unsure what evidence they had to achieve this and I found nothing that indicated there were any other charges related or unrelated against him. What is widely reported is that the confession came after over fifteen hours of interrogation in which he had not only not given any food or nourishment, officers had allowed a process server to come into the room and serve Bill with divorce papers.

While what he told police has been called a “confession,” in my opinion it was less of a confession than it was an explanation as to how things could have happened. Investigators argued that Bill had set started the fire prior to leaving with Tina to the drive-in. In his “confession” it was said that Bill stated he had previous spilled some vodka onto some newspaper and then an ashtray had fallen, possibly with a hot cigarette. This “confession” turned into him purposely pouring vodka onto newspaper and then lighting it with a cigarette. I have problems with this scenario. We have all seen the movies where a character throws a lit cigarette into a puddle of gasoline and BOOM there is a fire. The reality is that it does not work that way. The fumes are more flammable than anything and even then it would have been a flash fire, not a burning fire. Secondly, when the tip of the cigarette hit the puddle of gasoline it would douse the tip and there would not be a fire. The same goes with any other sort of flammable liquid, including vodka. But, experts in 1995 alleged it was possible. Then again, just as is the case in nearly every case that I research there are experts that will alleged something is possible depending on what side they are testifying for, and sometimes “possible” is all a jury needs to hear.

As is often the case in such confessions, Bill Amor almost immediately recanted and claimed that he had only told officers what they wanted to hear in order to get out of the situation he was in. But, it was this confession that prosecutors used against him in court, as well as they found an expert in the area to agree that it was possible. Then again it seems that no matter what position a side in the court takes there is always an expert willing to testify for their side and it is not uncommon for a prosecutor or defense attorney to search until they find someone to agree with their position. Prosecutors would alleged that the motive behind the murder was insurance money. They claimed that Bill Amor purposely murdered his mother in law so that his wife could obtain life insurance and the couple could prosper with a better life. It is not clear as to whether this theory was challenged during his trial in 1997 but apparently according to Marianne's sister, she was the beneficiary of Marianne's policy, not Tina. She said she had intended to keep the money for Tina for her future and she saw no reason that she would have given it to her at that time. In fairness just because Tina was not the beneficiary of her mothers life insurance policy does not mean that either she or Bill knew that although it could have been checked pretty easily. Regardless on September 17, 1997 Bill Amor was convicted in the murder of his mother in law and also on the charge of aggravated arson. He would receive a sentence of forty-five years.

I did not find any records of any appeals that were filed over the next several years but I can only assume there had been some and they had been denied. In 2012 the Illinois Innocence Project took Bill's case. It took until December of 2016 to complete their investigation and receive a post conviction hearing. The main argument from the defense was that the original findings for arson in 1997 did not stand up to modern knowledge of fire science. They also argued that Bill's confession was given under duress between the long hours of interrogation and the fact that in the middle of them he was served with divorce papers. The defense experts testified that it would have been impossible to start a fire with vodka and a lit cigarette and even the state experts had to admit that they did not believe Bill Amor could have been in the home when the fire started.

Based on the evidence given in the hearing, in April of 2017 the judge vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial. The judge was quoted as saying “there can be no question that the lynch pin of the states case at trial was the defendants confession which State and Defense experts today agree is scientifically impossible.” Bill Amor's bail was set at $100,000. He was released on May 30, 2017. If you look on some websites, including the Illinois Innocence Project, this is quoted as the date of his exoneration but that is not true. Prosecutors had announced they were planning a new trial for Bill Amor.

Bill Amor's second trial was conducted from January 24^th to February 2, 2018. The interesting thing about this was that it was a bench trial, meaning only the judge would decide his fate. But, even more interesting is that it would be the same judge that had overturned his conviction the previous year. Strangely I found nothing in which the prosecution attempted to have the judge removed from the case, although that does not mean it did not happen. The judge had seemed very clear in his ruling in 2017 that he felt the entire case the state had put on in his first trial was flawed. Obviously if the prosecutors had not taken Bill Amor to trial for a second time his conviction would have been completely vacated and from a legal standpoint it would have been considered to be unsolved. The problem that I have here though is the fact that had his conviction never been overturned Bill would have been released from prison in March of 2018. But, so much goes into that. There was no mention in my research but I have to wonder if the prosecutors did not attempt to make a deal with Bill Amor prior to the trial. The deal would have likely been something along the lines of what was offered to the defendants in the West Memphis Three case in Arkansas a few years ago.

If you do not know the West Memphis Three case I will give you the long and short of it. Three teenage boys were convicted in the murders of three young boys in the area. Much of it was based on what was considered to be a false confession from one of the defendants. The “leader” of the trio was sentenced to death. However, over the years evidence emerged of corruption and questions in the convictions. Many believe the reason they stayed in prison as long as they had was because the same judge had overseen the trial and every one of their appeals. Then the judge was elected to another position in the state politics and the case was going to go in front of a new judge. Most believed, even the prosecutors that the new judge would overturn the convictions and order a new trial. Prosecutors knew that they would have an uphill battle in getting those convictions again... too much doubt had come into play over the years. The prosecutors talked to the defendants about entering an Alford Plea. Basically what that meant was that the defendants would agree that the state had enough to convict them but they were not saying they were guilty. The deal would set all three of them free immediately. The deal also prevented them being able to sue the state for wrongful conviction or receive any kind of compensation for a wrongful conviction. The defendants took the deal, although it was said that they truly did not want to.

The difference between the Amor case and the West Memphis Three case was that Bill Amor had already gotten his conviction overturned. It appears that the prosecutors did not likely believe that would have happened when they entered the court in 2017. But, it should have seemed clear after the decision by the judge that their case was in trouble. In the same respect, seeing as the conviction and sentence had already been overturned AND there was going to be a bench trial with the same judge presiding, it would have been foolish for Bill Amor to take a deal offered. In the same respect, while the state was spending money on the trial if they had not attempted to try him again then the state would have surely lost money due to any lawsuits that would have been filed, or through the states Wrongfully Convicted Compensation Statute. In the end it would happen anyway but at least they attempted for a conviction.

It is not clear if some of the information I found regarding Bill Amor's 2018 trial was “new” evidence or I just did not hear it mentioned from the 1997 trial. The state really did seem to be stuck when it came to the science of the fire. It appears that even the state could not find anyone to agree that the fire was started in the manner Amor had stated in his “confession” but they did find one who claimed that he believed it was started by using an open flame on a cloth chair in the living room. Even still that was not proving that Bill Amor started that fire. Defense experts would argue that an open flame would have created smokey conditions within five minutes or less of being started and yet Marianne had not called 911 until between fifteen and twenty minutes after the couple left for the drive-in. In his first trial prosecutors had alleged that Bill had removed the battery from the smoke detector. It is unclear if they continued to argue that point in the second trial but even if they had it is unclear what proof that they had and how they would have been able to prove it was removed for malicious intent. It was said that Marianne smoked two packs of cigarettes a day and both Bill and Tina smoked also. There was likely smoke in that home on a regular basis. I know I have been known to remove a battery from a detector when it continually goes off because of one reason or another but I am not doing it so I can later set a fire in my home.

Prosecutors claimed that Bill Amor had written a letter to Tina saying he had ideas for “capital gains” and to be able to move out of the condominium and that he wanted to talk to her. They allege that this was evidence of his intent to murder Marianne. Once again I am unsure what evidence they had of this letter and by all accounts the two had not had a discussion about it so there was no way of proving what his “intentions” were. The prosecutor would also claim in the second trial that arson was Bill's second choice of murder. They allege he wanted to drug her but that he could not figure out the quantity necessary to ensure an overdose.

The defense argued that a lab had tested samples from the fire and there was no evidence of an ignitable liquid. It was their belief that the fire was most likely started by a carelessly placed cigarette. Regardless of the cause they also argued that the fire could not have started before or as Bill Amor was leaving the home and had to have started long after he had left.

While the bench trial ended on February 2^nd, the judge did not announce his verdict until February 22, 2018. In his ruling, in which he acquitted Bill Amor of all charges, the judge stated that the state's case was “fatally compromised.”

In May of 2018 Bill Amor, with his new attorney Kathleen Zellner, filed in the court asking that his record be expunged and a certificate of innocence be granted by the state. This is needed in order to qualify for the fund, up to $220,000, provided by the state through the Wrongfully Convicted Compensation Statue. Prosecutors have announced that they will “strenuously” oppose the petition for the certificate of innocence. Around the same time a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed against several former Naperville police officers claiming that they had “reached an agreement among themselves” to frame Bill Amor for murder. The suit names the City of Naperville and four former police officers, and the estate of a deceased officer. The only comment I found on this from the city was that none of the named officers work for Naperville at this time. Obviously one has passed away but I cannot tell you the status of the others and whether they no longer work for Naperville due to retirement or any other reason.

Cases like this irritate me. I understand that mistakes are made and in many cases convictions are obtained not on faulty evidence at the time, but evidence that later can be discounted. It happens and should simply be accepted. However, it seems as if few prosecutors want to admit that their department got it wrong. And, the sad thing about it is that in many of these cases the original prosecutor is no longer working there so the prosecutor left to handle the mistake is not the same person who prosecuted the first time. The difference in this case for me though is the common sense knowledge that the fire could not have been started the way the “confession” says it was. And, that is even with the prosecutor twisting the words to sound more like a confession than an accident as it was portrayed in the first place. I never saw this as a confession. I saw this as a man who all but said “I spilled some Vodka a few days before and then an ashtray fell over the next day. Maybe something was still hot in there.” If it had been possible for a fire to start in that matter it still appeared to me to be an accidental situation and definitely did not rise to the level of murder. Thankfully someone finally listened and an innocent man has gone free.