As per my example, there should not be a fire in the middle of a bed, and there surely should not be gasoline found in the mattress. Based on these facts, there was a fire started where one was not going to be initiated, otherwise.

Would you agree that when the intent of the person's action cannot be determined or proven to an acceptable level of certainty, the correct classification is undetermined. In most cases, this classification will be clear, but some deliberately ignited fires can still be accidental.

One of the sources of evidence of intent found in the Incendiary Fire chapter is the separate fire scenario. What is being said is that from this evidence one can say what the person’s intent was at the time the fire originated. It fits into a fire that should not be there. It fits the example I gave perfectly.

If one were to say the person in the house at the time of the fire had the intent to set the fire and destroy the house. Is this analysis correct? I know for a fact it was not. The person had a nanny cam. I pulled the chip from the camera and found that the person was working on the lawnmower in the bedroom. It also showed him dragging the lawnmower through the hallway. Then one could see ignition from the vapors from an appliance. So, one really could not determine the intent based solely on separate fires. At what point does one need to go before it can be sure the determination of of intent is correct.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group