I agree that science can produce the correct answers based on the data available at the time. There needs to be a continuous evaluation of this information as it is uncovered with a re-evaluation constantly in progress. It is my belief that when we attempt to take the conclusions reached through science and fit them into pre-ordained categories based on a person’s intent is where the problem begins. Let us stick and report the findings based on science.

If an investigator were to stick to the 921 document he or she must know the person’s intent before they can classify the cause of the fire. Sure, some intent can be inferred by the physical evidence. In the case I suggested there was a clear intent by a person to set the building on fire. What was not clear was that the intent was revenge and not profit. If you looked at the case the most likely intent would have been some type of financial motive on the part of the owner, but if you look at the actual arsonist then the intent was nothing more than revenge. I guess what I am asking is, to meet the requirements in 921 for classification how much of the intent do I need to know before a classification can be made. The other thing I was trying to show is that it is easy to infer intent and be completely wrong. In this case, science could only give the investigator the right answer as to the source of ignition and the fuel ignited. Anything beyond that is speculation until the rest of the story is told. In addition to what has been said about the case, all the owner had to do was to say he was trying to clean with the gasoline and that would change the same scenario to an accidental classification.

We need to be careful when assigning labels.