NCJ Number
138904
Journal
Fire and Arson Investigator Volume: 43 Issue: 1 Dated: (September 1992) Pages: 41-51
Date Published
1992
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This article reviews steps in an arson investigation in Florida, including a test fire and a decision by the prosecutor not to prosecute the suspect based on the available evidence.
Abstract
After an initial investigation at the fire scene, the investigators believed there were five points that could prove the arson allegation and place the husband of one of the fire victims as the primary suspect. First, the suspect's account of the fire did not match fire-scene evidence; second, the suspect's statement on the fire's point of origin did not match the evidence; third, the firefighters' statements supported the use of a liquid accelerant; fourth, burn patterns suggested an accelerant was applied to the floor; and fifth, the victims' low carbon monoxide levels proved they died from the fire and not from the smoke. An investigator hired by the public defender who represented the suspect, however, claimed that in his expert opinion thermal inversion had produced the fire patterns, consistent with the suspect's contention that the fire started accidentally in a sofa. To test the two theories, the prosecutor instructed the initial arson investigators and firefighters to conduct two test fires in an abandoned house of the same design as the house in which the fire occurred. The first test paralleled the scenario presented by the suspect, and the second test simulated the scenario supported by the initial fire investigators. The prosecutor concluded that the evidence of the test fires was insufficient to prove false the suspect's explanation of the fire as accidental, and that the other evidence was not sufficient to meet the burden of proof. 10 illustrative figures