I would like to address you example. I understand your point but there are some other considerations I think needing to be addressed.

Your example is based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be wrong. I would like to give you an example of an event where the circumstantial was as strong, if not stronger than your example. The way I known the facts are correct is because I am the private investigator involved.

The was this little bar located in the oil patch area of south Louisiana. The structure was wood frame with plywood siding. There were two doors, one front the other in the back. There were no windows. The doors were secured by padlocks. The only person with a key to the padlocks was the owner.

At night the locals had card games in the bar. This one night a passerby stopped for a drink. The persons playing cards invited him to play. Around midnight he left light on money. He believed he was taken by the locals. One of the locals in the card game was the owner of the bar.

The card game broke up and the owner closed and locked the bar around 1:30 am. At 3:00 am a passerby on the highway saw smoke coming from the building and called the fire department. The fire department arrived and found the building locked. The forced entry and found a small fire in the center of the building. While they were extinguishing, they smelled the odor of gasoline. They called for an investigation from the state fire marshal. The insurance agent was one of the volunteers that responded to the fire and the agent notified the insurance company about what was discovered. The insurance company hired my company to conduct an origin and cause investigation.

In working with the fire marshal and an electrical engineer the facts as the building’s security were confirmed, and potential causes of ignition within the building was eliminated. The laboratory confirmed the presence of gasoline.

What we had was a secure structure with the owner being the only one with keys. The structure was secured when the fire department arrived. There were no natural ignition sources that would have contributed to the ignition of the fire. The gasoline was not a normal product located in the building.

Where the public sector decided not to pursue the investigation further, the insurance company denied the claim. It went to court and the insurance company won.

Based on these facts do you believe the conclusion as to the person responsible, based on the circumstantial evidence, was the correct conclusion?

Now let’s talk about the rest of the story.

The person that lost the money decided to get his revenge against those that took his money. After he left the bar, he went to the home improvement store. There he purchased 50-feet of cotton close line, 25-feet of ½-inch plastic pipe, a tube of white putty, a gun to apply the putty, a hand crank drill with a ¾-inch wood bit, a 2-gallon plastic gasoline container. He then bought a 2-liter coke and filled the gasoline container. He then went back to the bar a watched the owner close-up. When he was sure the owner was gone, he approached the building. He drilled a hole in the side of the building. He ran the pipe into the building and slid the clothesline through the pipe. The then used the plastic coke bottle as a funnel and poured the gasoline into the building. He lit the clothesline then pulled the pipe and the clothesline from the building. He sealed up the hole with the putty and then covered the putty with dirt. He discarded all the items he used in the swamp on his way out of town.

I know you are wonder how I know this is fact. Two years after the incident I got a call from a friend with the FBI. He said he had spoken with a person they had in custody about this fire. He had asked the person if he was willing to speak with me about the fire and the person agreed. It turned out they had arrested this person during an arson for profit sting. I met with the person, and he related the facts as I described.

This case caused me to think when it came to saying a person was responsible based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that the fire was intentionally set was correct, but we had the wrong person. I often think if this person had gone to jail because I said he was the only person with the opportunity to set this fire. It is for this reason I do not want to do anything more than present facts that I can support. I let other reach conclusions as to the classification and the person(s) responsile.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group