A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Undetermined Accidental?
Posted by:
Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: February 02, 2007 11:33AM
First thing is yes the owner was the one that locked the place. Second, these were the facts as of the completion of the scene investigation. The purpose of this scenario is to show there are no absolutes. Everything pointed to the man but when you spoke with him there was a feeling he was not involved. The file was listed as arson but the owner was not arrested. The investigation did continue on the motive end and it failed to produce any reason for the owner to set the fire. To make a long story short, a year later received a call from a federal agency with information on the case. They had arrested a person on another fire and he ended up confessing to this one. This person said he stopped at the bar and got involved in a card game and lost to the owner. He thought he was cheated so after the place was closed he came back and set the fire in a way that it would look like the owner did it. It is a long story as to how he got past the locks but he did. There was enough hard evidence to send the owner to jail without a motive but thank God there was no arrest made by the investigators. The investigators were two old time fire marshals that believed that is was a deliberate act but that there was insufficient information for them to believe the owner did it.
What I am trying to say is that what we do, both private and public, has an affect on others. Sometimes we can follow all the requirements and steps for conducting an investigation and still not have the right answer. I know this statement is opposite what I previously posted but it shows there are no absolutes. Here the investigators could not determine the actual intent for the setting of the fire. Yes, they new the intent was a person set the fire with the intention of burning down the building but they did not know why. Know intent does not just stop at the reason for ignition but extends to the reason for why the person acted the way they did. In this case the wrong person did not go to jail, in other cases they have, this is just not a perfect system and we as individuals do the best we can to ensure these mistakes do not take place.