Goodfield boy accused in fatal 2019 fire to be re-evaluated for fitness

“He needs to be in a program that is going to bring him to fitness,” Judge Charles Feeney said, ordering that the boy be evaluated by a psychiatric doctor based in Peoria to obtain a recommendation for treatment.

In July 2020, the boy, who was 9 at the time of the fatal fire, was found to be unfit to stand for trial. Feeney said he believed that was based on his “age and lack of development, which is a temporary condition.”

The boy, now 13, is charged with arson, aggravated arson and five counts of murder in the deaths of Kathryn Murray, 69; Jason Wall, 34; Rose Alwood, 2; Damien Wall, 2; and Ariel Wall, 1, who all died in the fire. The boy and his mother, Katrina Alwood, survived.

As a result of that 2020 fitness finding, a discharge hearing was held to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the case would stand up in trial if that were to happen — to prove that the boy was “not not guilty,” State’s Attorney Greg Minger said.

The discharge hearing was completed Thursday afternoon. At the end, Feeney said he did not have any reasonable doubt and ruled in the state’s favor.

After the hearing, Minger said he was satisfied with the result, as “I wouldn’t have charged him if I didn’t feel there was evidence (to support it).”

Because of the nature of the charges, the boy has up to five years from the finding that he was unfit for trial to obtain fitness. After he is re-evaluated and given a recommendation, the boy could be deemed fit for trial and “have his day in court,” Feeney said.

The judge said the boy likely will need education, training and treatment so he can understand the procedure of court, noting “he’s a teachable kid.”

Andrew Lankton, the attorney acting as guardian ad litem for the boy, said he has been in counseling.

A hearing will be held April 14 to check the status of the evaluation.

Argument and ruling

During the hearing Thursday, Minger said the boy has a history of lighting fires, denying it and later admitting to it. The boy has not admitted to law enforcement that he started the fire that burned through his trailer home on April 6, 2019, but members of his family testified he had told them that he started the fire.

Minger also said the boy’s aunt testified he came to her trailer after the fire started, knocked on the door and told her, “I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to do it.” 

The state’s attorney said his history puts the fatal fire in line with the boy’s modus operandi, or M.O., and since 2019, the boy has started another fire, this time at a house in Peoria in September 2021. Minger said the boy tried to blame another child for the 2021 fire.

Because of the history of lighting fires, Minger argued the boy knew in 2019 what fire can do and that it can destroy things and hurt people.

Peter Dluski, the boy’s defense attorney, argued the boy was innocent and said the witnesses who testified that he had admitted to starting the fire were not credible witnesses.

The boy’s mother, who testified Thursday, had admitted while under oath that she initially lied to police to try covering for her son, Dluski said, adding that the boy had a history of admitting to things he hadn’t done.

He said the other witnesses did not have consistent stories when they testified, which hindered their credibility. However, Feeney said it was not surprising that they all had remembered different details considering the time that has passed.

Dluski said no one saw the boy start any of the fires mentioned in court. He said more should have been done in the investigation of the fire, including asking the boy more questions, following other leads and exploring other fire investigation techniques, such as using a grid system to analyze the scene.

“Our position is that our client should be found innocent because he did not commit these crimes,” he said. “... We don’t know how it started; we don’t have the lighter; we don’t have a candle.”

Lankton gave a brief argument, agreeing with Dluski that further testing and evidence collection at the fire scene should have been conducted.

“We might never be able to know who set this fire,” Lankton said.

Minger, in rebuttal, acknowledged the evidence in this case is circumstantial.

“All the circumstances, unless he is the unluckiest kid in the world that all these fires just happen to be coming up around him, the evidence is overwhelming,” Minger said.

In giving his ruling, Feeney said the boy had witnessed and knew the ramifications of fire and that his behavior following the fires showed he understood “the wrongfulness of his conduct.”

He said the boy’s mother had taken “extraordinary measures” to keep him from being able to start fires, with no candles, lighters or other heat sources kept in the trailer.

“They were clearly scared of his relationship with fire,” Feeney said of his mother and other family members, noting she had given a fake story that she believed the furnace had exploded. “... They were clearly scared of him and his propensity to do something.”