NCJ Number
138905
Journal
Fire and Arson Investigator Volume: 43 Issue: 1 Dated: (September 1992) Pages: 52-54
Date Published
1992
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This article reviews the evidence in a fire investigation in Jacksonville, Florida, presenting the pros and cons of the case against the defendant, which concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove arson beyond a reasonable doubt.
Abstract
Every contention by the original investigative team proposed to establish the suspect's guilt had a matching plausible explanation that supported the suspect's story and his innocence. Two test fires were set in an abandoned house designed exactly like the house in which the fire occurred; the first test paralleled the suspect's explanation of an "accidental" fire and the second, the fire investigators' initial contention that the fire was started with a liquid accelerant. The evidence from the two test fires did not prove that either fire scenario was clearly true or false. The author concludes that although the evidence does not conclusively prove that the suspect did not set the fire, neither does it conclusively establish that he did; consequently, the prosecutor was correct in deciding that the case should not be tried, given that the evidence did not prove the suspect's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.