Jury sees video of inferno that killed 5

The prosecutor is not effective at all! she stumbles over her own questions...very frustrating as an onlooker.

miss hilton is clearly disturbed. she may have lived in society all this time but that does not make her capable to stand trial. i have an adult son with similar issues, god forbid if anyone went after him like this.The prosecution is looking for an easy way out. this woman has already spent 10 years in prison, based on a confession, what is going on here? Take a look at her, she is clearly disturbed. Somebody is going to pay for such stupidity and injustice to this woman. R. Evans Charlotte N.C.

Why are there no charges for the landlord if the smoke alarms weren't working and never were. Are there laws in regards for working smoke alarms in apartment buildings?

Judy On Canada

Yes there are laws regarding Smoke detectors But you need to put the new batteries in it to keep it working, they may have been there but not working, that is NOT the landlord fault!!

Although there are laws for hard wire smoke detectors for the hallways. that mean they use electricity instead of batteries, and that IS the landlords responcibility.

One of the witnesses, I believe, stated, the defendants's son told her, '...he would not get his hands dirty...'. His mother does seem to be mentally challenge and I believe her son coerced her into setting the fire, when he would have an alibi. She merely, as horrendous as the situation is, was just following her son's orders.

What is wrong with our courts that this woman is held for 10 years on at least so far, very flimsy evidence: we need laws and places for the criminally insane, which is what this women is if she set that fire. Did the son take a lie detector test, and how strong is his alibi? Also, how about fire escapes and room ladders: where are the charges for a landlord who bears some responsibility for these deaths?

You can see the results of heavy medication over the years in her lip smacking, etc. She may be adjudged competent to stand trial but, if she did it, she certainly isn't competent to understand the consequences of her actions as we would know it. My concern is if she didn't do it, someone out there has gotten away with murder and given her condition, I don't think we will ever know if she did unless there is very good forensic evidence which we haven't seen yet.

I've been watching the live coverage and it just went down, what happened?

Sounds like you folks have figured out how to watch the trial. I was paying Comcast 13 dollars a month to be able to watch 'Court TV', and then it disappeared, and I think it's here on CNN/Crime but I can't seem to find the link.

Can trials be viewed live here, as they were on Court TV? Would SKS help me find the link?

Many thanks in advance!
Jim

As far as the smoke detectors and there not being any charges againts the lanlord for these smoke detectors not working, the lanlord and his family died on the 3rd floor of the residence.
As far as the confession that Kathleen Hilton used oils and lit them with a cigarette, this might work in Hollywood but in the real life the cigarette soak up the fluids and actually put out the cigarette.

Jim, they are now showing trials on CNN.com/crime. Unfortunately, some of the stuff they show are old trials. But, right now they are shoiwng Hilton's trial for the arson fire. She does look bad and 10 yrs to go to trial is way to long.

P.S. to Jim C

I get trial coverage that used to be on 'Court TV' on ' Reality TV', which is what it changed to in L.A (Ch 79). See if you have it on your local progamming. Hope that helps!

Agree, in general, about the cigarette and oil, however, if the wood was dry and rotted enough it would only take a single flare up or spark from the oil getting touched with the hot end of the cigarette to start a smolder.

It could have smoldered undetected for a while before working itself up into the flaming fire.

This might also explain the lack of a pour pattern.

Is it just me or is this prosecutor completely ineffective? She seems to lose focus and over complicates her questions. I think she will end up "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and nobody will pay for this crime. I've yet to hear all of the evidence or the defence but at this point the only thing that will convict this defendant is the physical evidence related to the viewing, certainly not the prosecutor's stammering, confusing questions. Perhaps it won't matter and the prosecution will shortly unveil the smolking gun! I hope so, but I fear that all of this will ultimately fizzle.

Man she started a fire on a house that had babies in it. The woman deserves another 50 + plus years. If she is "not all there" but capable of such things then tough stuff. We can't risk her doing it again.

reply for Scott J, your comment is 100% correct, so therefore I have no comment OTHER than maybe if they put new batteries into TOT MOM then she may work correctly and start to undo all of her vicious lies, and stop trying to make the world out there a victim, and her the poor little girl who has no one to COMFORT her. What is wrong with our court system, lets make sure this killer will not escape her penalty for taking the life of a pure little angel. Betty

Looks can be deceiving. She might not be crazy at all.

I am curious why a mother would do time for 10 years for her child? I love my 2 children, but sometimes they have to take responsibility for themelves. The son infact has had conflicts (restraining order) with his partner. I don't remember her having the kids or getting the restraining on her, what would be her reason? He's a big boy, im sure he can handle prison more than his mother. I guess if he can't step up to the plate then why would he do it now! what a jerk My God this woman has to be nuts to go through this!

Are we able to watch this on CNN TV or is it only be streamed on the web? I seen a link today on CNN.com/crime with a Live Coverage link, though I was not able to open it at work. ( only on my home computer)

I would like to tape this trial, if possible, any thoughts on this?

Jim C – CNN only sometimes streams this trial live. Check periodically at cnn.com/crime & if there is a live stream flowing, you'll see it at the top right of the screen. If you click on it, you'll be in the courtroom! (well, watching it anyway)

I have been watching this trial and am fascinated by the idea that we have such a messed up legal system, that this woman, (who's IQ probably hasnt changed over the last 30 years) was competent enough to raise another human being, (her son) and no-one questioned that.. But now that shes on trial all of the sudden shes not even 'competent' enough to give a statement. I know when she lit the porch on fire she didnt intend to kill anyone. I dont think she knew it would get as big as it did. I think she really did want to just 'smoke them out' (thats her low IQ playing in) Thats why when the cops talked to her she admitted to the arson, because she knew she really made a mistake. (and that was also her low IQ playin in) Shes not smart enough to falsly confess. But she knows enough about whats going on to stand trial. I mean, COME ON.

It appears to me that Mr Loayza hired someone to do the arson and he himself would have a solid alibi. He did say he wouldn't dirty his own hands in one of his threats.
His mother Kathleen Hilton originally thought he had either done the crime or was involved and admiited to doing it herself to protect him.

Yes Jim C, you can watch the entire trial in one of the alternate streams at cnn.com/live
that's where you'll find live video of the courtroom whenever the trial is in session..

I have mixed feelings about this defendant. One thing I believe is not fair, is she has been in prison for 10 years. She must be very dependant on this type of structure to help her cope with life now. What will happen to her if she is pronounced Not Guilty!, where can she go and who will be responsble for her well-being?

let me start by saying how do you know that the police didn't push her into a statement????? police bully people into stuff all the time cause if you people no the when someone is not so smart if you freak then out to badly they will say anything

you guys are going by what others say i think you should not be judging charles.... none of you guys no him. you can't judge him, how do you know that he said any of those things that you are hearing....there's alot to the relationship that none of you guy know!!!! and if his mom did have something to do with this fire she work alone and not on the word of anyone else so why do you guys get a life and stop pointing fingers at the son!!!!! they shouldn't even have this on tv her trial should be private so no one can judge anyone.... it's seem to me the krystine just wants her 15 mins of fame

It's amazing to me that this case ever came to trail, and the fact a woman has spent the the last 10 years in prison is unimaginable. Other viewers have stated because of her condition she's better off where she's at. If she were a person with special needs that had family to care for her she wouldn't have been in prison for the past 10 years . And instead of being able to be used as a easy out she should of been protected. And then maybe some effort would of been put in to understanding how this tragic fire happened. But it's to late for that now. The passion her lawyer has maintained for this long tells me allot. But the facts in this case, as they come out, show me more and more that this woman is probably being used as a scape goat.

Just got into this trial. My question is this. Why does the defense continually point out her low IQ and her mental/emotional problems? It's not like they are going for a not-guilty by reason of insanity (which requires that you actually plead guilty), rather they are going for not guilty – as in someone else did it. So why keep bringing up her issues?

I DONT WANT THIS TRIAL ON TV
I HAVENT DONE ANY INTERVIEWS!!
I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY TONS OF THEM TO
DO SO!!
I DONT MAKE THE CALL OF WHAT GETS BROADCASTED ON TV.
I WAS CONTACTED BY COURT TV A FEW WEEKS AGO AND TOLD IT WAS BEING BROADCASTED!
AS FOR WHAT HAPPENED IN MY RELATIONSHIP WITH CHARLES, YOU DON'T KNOW SO DON'T SIT HERE AND SAY STOP POINTING FINGERS AT CHARLES. I AM ONE OF ONLY 2 PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT WENT ON BETWEEN CHARLES AND I. CHARLES IS NOT AN ANGEL BY ANY MEANS.
ALL I DID WAS STATE THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ME! FACT- HE DID THREATEN TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN TWO HOURS BEFORE IT BURNT. HE WAS ARRESTED AFTER BECAUSE OF THAT THREAT. I DID NOT GO ON THE STAND AND SAY HE BURNT MY HOME. I ONLY STATED THAT HE THREATENED TO DO SO AND THAT HIS MOTHER WAS AT MY HOME BEFORE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS. I DON'T WANT ANY ATTENTION IN REGARDS TO THIS CASE. I GET UPSET EVERYTIME I READ IT IN A NEWSPAPER, ONLINE OR SEE IT ON TV. I DON'T NEED IT, MY CHILDREN DON'T NEED IT EITHER. I EVEN CHANGED MY NAME TO AVOID PEOPLE KNOWING IT WAS ME.
I DO AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT 10 YEARS IS ABSOLUTELY WAY TOO LONG FOR THIS CASE TO HAVE DRAGGED ON!!!

The reports I've read and the coverage I've watch, including the story above, have made statements similar to this, "the defense claims there is no forensic evidence linking Hilton to the fire". I am hoping someone could enlighten me with more information as this couldn't possibly the case. Could it? The only information I’ve been able to find concerning evidence are the statements allegedly made by Ms. Hilton to police and other witnesses, after the fact. So please, other than statements allegedly made by Mr. Loayza, is there any evidence that was left or created by Ms. Hilton prior to the crime that would link her to this fire? I would find it shocking and disturbing if the only evidence is the statements made by this woman after the fact. The motive offered by the prosecution, that Ms. Hilton was trying to force Ms. Sutherland and the children to move back in with her son by burning down her residence, is extraordinary. Would Ms. Hilton intentionally endanger her grandchildren in such a risky plot? And to do it with no guarantee that there would be reconciliation if her plan succeeded makes it an even more extraordinary assertion. That’s an extraordinary accusation and it warrants extraordinary substantiation.

A confession is not extraordinary evidence. Leading the police to where a body is buried, or a thumbprint in a victims blood is extraordinary evidence. That is the kind of evidence that is needed here. There has got to be something extraordinary that links Ms. Hilton to this crime. Just having the opportunity is not enough.

What about the motive? Ms. Hilton and Mr. Loayza are not the only ones with motive here. If you don’t jump to the conclusion straight away that destroying the building by fire was the intent, numerous motives become apparent. What about the building owner? I know he and his family perished on the third floor but maybe that was unforeseen. It wouldn’t be the first time a building was the target of arson for money. What about Ms. Sutherland? Would she benefit somehow by a fire being intentionally set in her building? After Mr. Loayza made his foolish statements about burning the house down, it sure wouldn’t look good to the courts in any future custody disputes between these parents. Perhaps a little fire in the stairwell, nothing major, just enough to make your Ex look like he did what he threatened to do. But, unfortunately it got out of hand.

The outcome doesn’t necessarily describe the intent. I state redundantly knowing everyone already knows that.

Of course I'm simply pointing out that other motives do, or could, exist. I'm not accusing anyone here. I am certain that there is a lot of pain felt by all the victims of this tragedy.

Also, if the relationship between Mr. Loayza and Ms. Sutherland had escalated to a point where threats of death and other violence were being made, why on earth would Ms. Hilton hope for reconciliation between these two? Her grandchildren were right down the street and very close. She stood more of a chance that Ms. Sutherland and the kids would move even further away. I would find it easier to believe that she was trying to murder Ms. Sutherland to get her out of the way. That would make much more sense to me. Of course when you plug the grandchildren into that equation it loses it’s credibility. Or it becomes extraordinary to believe that she would try to kill Ms. Sutherland but somehow spare the children. The assertion that she was attempting to kill, or otherwise get rid of, Ms. Sutherland on behalf of her son by burning the apartment building, all the while hoping that the grandchildren would survive is preposterous.

I could go on and on with this line and I think I have. Come on though! She supposedly was trying to get custody of the kids, or at least force the mother back into her son’s arms! She wouldn’t burn the home the kids were in to get them! Or I should say it seems very unlikely that she would do that. Heck, she may be that crazy. She would have to be to come up with a plan like that. But anything is possible. It’s an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence to prove it.

Once again I ask for enlightenment. The story above states that “Prosecutors are expected to argue that Hilton could not have seen smoke from her home, and could only have known the house was on fire because she set it”. Did Ms. Hilton claim that she was at the house during the fire because she “saw the smoke”? Or is it assumed by the state that she must have seen the smoke to know there was a fire? Or is it something else?

I have seen more than one version of what Ms. Hilton allegedly said to someone after her arraignment. That she used either “special oil” or “lamp oil”, or “scented oil”. Except for wanting to know exactly what she is accused of saying I would like to know whether or not investigators have determined that that is how the fire was set. It would be nice to see something like: Investigators have determined that the fire was fueled with lamp oil, in the stairway, and started with a cigarette. The same brand of cigarette Ms. Hilton smokes.

Have these things been determined firmly or not? I can’t find any information about that. I’m sure it must be out there.

If there a resource that provides the evidence in this case I would love to know where to find it.

I still think the largest criminal organization in the United States is LAW ENFORCEMENT. Cops have killed many people because they thought they had a gun in their hand, and it turned out to be a candy bar, one cop shot a women that had a spatula in her hand "thought it was a gun. Another man was shot by a cop because he had a gun, "it was a remote control". Another cop shot a man with a gun in his hand "it was a wallet". None of the cops were prosecuted. If I shot someone because I thought they had a gun in their hand and they were a threat to me and it turned out to be a cell phone I would have a judge towering over me yelling "you should have made damn sure that was a gun before you fired idiot! I sentence you to 30 years in prison!" As you see cops, politicians, the rich and famous etc DO NOT have to abide by the same laws imposed on the rest of us! Nobodies go to prison, somebodies get off free.All the cop cars, court buildings and government buildings should have swastikas put on them because that is where america is and it will get worse. I went to prison for 2 years for indecent exposer in front of a child "when did Janis Jackson get 2 years in prison for indecent exposer in front of a of thousands of children?" I went to prison for 3 years for a small amount of cannabis. Football & basketball players have been busted with large quantities of cocaine where is their 3 year prison sentence??? There is two kinds of justice in America and the poor & middle class get the harsh justice and the rich & powerful can get away with almost anything. I can give thousands of crimes committed politicians, police, judges, law makers, the rich etc but how can I take them to court and sentence them to prison? I think we all know thats not going to happen. I can't wait till the sheep are separated from the goats and make no mistake EVERY Judge & DA is a goat.

Kristina,
Good for you standing up for yourself. These people don't know what happens behind closed doors. I'm gald you & your family are fine. Good luck to you and your family in the future. My prayers are with you.

Dianna

Re: Dana's comment... All anyone needs to know about Charles are the threats he made openly and which were witnessed and attested to by more than one person. No one is questioning the credibility of these people in the trial. There is no justification for making threats of this kind, ever. Anything you may personally think about him has no bearing on this trial.

Krystina
I am so sorry that you have had to go through this horrible fire and now it seems others are quick to ridicule the victim. I hope after this is over soon, your life will be yours and you and your family will have a chance for happiness.

In response to Larry C/
I'm glad someone else thinks Krystina did it. I totally thaught so, so I got on my computer to see where I could voice my opinion and found your comments. After reading Krystina's comments above, I believe it even more. She wouldn't want to interview for sure of the worry of guilt and that she may slip up. She needs this over fast, so she can go on. Ireally hope I'm wrong, but the more I see and hear the more it points to her or her mother. You can see what I posted earlier today on todays blog.

It is pitiful. Hilton's son ignited a deadly inferno because of his rage! He was blinded with anger over his kid's and restraining orders. He was infuriated over custody actions. But Sutherland is a witness to his threats and violence. Loayza basically put a loaded gun in his mother's hand and told her what to do. Whether or not she actually started the fire is another question. Perhaps he had other means of starting a fire before his mother could step in to help her poor son. Perhaps she only looks guilty.

Hilton's son ignited the fire with his rage and anger. Regardless of who dun it, the son was manipulative and played his mentally ill mother for all it's worth. I only hope we are not suckered by the defendants over aged appearance. It is hard to believe that Hilton is only 62. This woman who appeared slurred of speech and possibly mentally ill ten years ago has deteriorated to the point of hoplessness and dementia. How could she not know that her grandchildren's home would be set on fire. That's all her son threatened to do. I don't think that an inferno started from a cigarette on a cold day in February.

re:lis whoever you are you don't know the whole story but i know people that know this story and then have had krystina ask them to lie for her about charles. i also no that melione bruke and krystina were not friends so they can play it how ever they want to!!!!! it seems to me that you are just feeling bad for Krystina because she is a women crying poor me poor me!!!!! she wants to make charles look like an evil person but you have not talked to him and you don't know him and you should jump to the conclusion that he is an animal!!!! a father should have rights too!!!!! a woman shouldn't be able to hold a child over a mans head and they should be able to lie about things that have been lied about in this trial!!!! the witnesses are not even suppose to talk about this case until it is over!!!! but i am sure that when it is over that the fireworks will fly!!!!! but you can keep feeding into the poor me thing for her but in the end it will all come out!!!! and another fact is that a person that abuses someone else isn't gonna do it infront of people because they don't want witnesses in case the police are call so maybe you need to get a bit more education and stop feeding into all the bull!!!! if she was so abused why did she stay with him for 4 years like they said on the tv!!!! but you keep feeding into whatever i can have my opinon and you can have yours but i think charles is inncocent and that's that

I've been watching the Hilton trial for the 12 days since it began. First....It is a tragedy for the five individuals and their families...Yet secondly...This trial is pretty much a travesty. This defendant has been incarcerated for 10 years to this date in a women's prison, not an institution where she could possibly recieve some kind of psychological assistance. She has been diagnosed as borderline mentally retarded(and who knows what else). Why not just leave her in a place where she can be productive and recieve some guidance whether she is proved guilty or innocent....The sentence or acquittal seems to be anti-climatic at this point. This so-called trial and the events leading over these 10 years have cost the state of Maine and the taxpayers of said state, soooo much time and money. My advice is to let it go.....Let Ms.Hilton live out her life confined but cared for. Not as an object of revenge. The courts have over-prosecuted this mess. Again...I have empathy for the deceased families and friends. Those people can never be replaced...I understand that...but what will a guilty verdict mean, if that's what it will come down to....Justice? And once that Justice is served what then? Just so people can say that Ms.Hilton finally got hers.......Have you looked at that woman? I think there is much that escapes her awareness of these proceedings and life itself. And....the evidence presented to this court by the state has not proved her guilt, forensically or otherwise. These are our courts and the ways of our laws and we must abide by them. This is how IT works...revenge aside...like it or not.