Fire Series: The Failures in Fire Investigation – Part 2 – Wrong Suspect?

Last week, we introduced you to the key issues we commonly encounter in our fire investigation casework, and we showed how easily cognitive bias can lead to the perception of a crime having taken place when there may not be one. Missed it? Catch up on Part 1 here.

This week, we are talking about the suspect. Although a fire may have been identified correctly as an arson, the next question is who did it?

Wrong Suspect

The input from a fire investigator can critically influence the approach by the police in their investigation, and equally the police may press ahead with an investigation and arrest without consulting with the fire investigator to see if that person’s actions really fit the scenario.  Fact gathering and close analysis of the timeline often unravels these cases.  For example:

• The fire investigator stated the fire could not have been started by something pushed through the letterbox (so it must have been the occupant).  After analysis, it was evident the fire had started via someone putting their hands through the letterbox and, to top it off, the true perpetrator’s fingerprints were also found on the letterbox flap.
• Arson inside a pub toilet led to the arrest of a person seen on CCTV using the toilet some minutes before the fire.  However, no statement was taken from the pub regular who discovered it.  Review of CCTV footage raised serious questions about the actions of the regular who “discovered the fire”.  
• Arson inside a ground floor flat was blamed on the sole occupant as the flat was “secure” and he had the only key.  However, witness evidence and smoke patterns showed one window was open.  In addition, the attending CSI had found “burglar marks” on the window consistent with someone climbing in.  The occupant was the apparent victim of a hate crime, for which he was then arrested.
• A fire was determined to have started in a rear kitchen with a locked back door so it must have been the occupants.  Timeline analysis showed that the fire could not have started in the kitchen and must have started from outside in the back yard and spread inwards.  

Each of these cases were discontinued at trial. 

The key learning point here – fires really are complicated. It absolutely requires an independent root-and-branch review, ensuring all of the facts are considered and a timeline of the incident compiled to allow for a proper assessment of the circumstances. Without it –the wrong person can end up in the dock.

Next week: Is it the right charge? Even when we have the right suspect, overlooking the details can end up with the wrong charge being brought.