Our understanding of fire theory has advanced rapidly in the past three decades, and so has our ability to investigate fires.
In the US, the NFPA first became concerned at the quality of fire investigations in 1985 and set about putting together a comprehensive guide for fire investigators to base their work on. The first edition was published in 1992, and the latest “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations” was published in 2011. The guide covers all aspects of fire and explosion investigations from basic methodologies to evidence collection and from simple vehicle fires to complex investigations.
The publication of the guide signalled a revolution in fire investigation process, and now light is being shined on arson convictions from the 1970s and 80s that could have been based on evidence that wasn’t up to the task.
The Associated Press reported this week that authorities in Texas and other states are beginning a process of reexamination of arson convictions that could have been based on expert testimony relating to burn patterns.
Texas’s state fire marshal is working with a not-for-profit organisation called the Innocence Project and has identified six potentially dubious convictions.
One is of Ed Graf, who was convicted in 1988 for locking his two stepsons in a shed and setting fire to it. Now, the images of the burnt-out shed that were used to prove this was arson, and not an accident, are being looked at again.
The Innocence Project has apparently also identified several cases across US states where this might be the case, including one in Arizona where 29 people were killed.
Texas State Fire Marshal Chris Connealy told the AP that he was working with the Innocence Project to ensure that justice was served: “Having been around fire investigations and being in the fire service the last 35 years, I saw where there could be improvements. I wanted to try to lead that effort to improving fire investigations. It should be based on science.”
The science of fire investigations has improved dramatically in the last few decades — from the discovery of the trench effect at the King’s Cross Station fire where 31 died 25 years ago, to the establishment of organisations such as the UK Association of Fire Investigators in 2003, part of the International Association of Arson Investigators.
The UK AFI aims to develop technical knowledge in fire and arson and to make that information available to professionals and the public. They also have a product recall database so that people can find some of the products that could cause them risk, an issue we reported on this week.
In the Graf case, prosecutors apparently pointed to “alligator” burn patterns on the shed in which his stepsons died. This was alleged to be evidence of an accelerant, such as lighter fuel, being involved in the fire. Some experts believe it could be evidence of a flashover, instead.
Whether Ed Graf will receive an appeal is expected to be decided upon in April, but it seems likely that, in the wake of new scientific testimony, his case will be heard again. His wife, who remains convinced of his guilt, described the new evidence as his “get out of jail free card.”
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
I can’t say that I’m an arson expert but can you tell intent from a set of photos? Maybe in this case there are some very clear indications of where and how the fire started but if this was a criminal case I suspect there was more to it than just crime scene photos when it came to getting a conviction.
You’d have thought so. As I said, the new evidence in this case is likely to be the basis of an appeal, rather than absolute contradictory evidence that will acquit him immediately. As you say, there will have been more to the case than simply ‘It was arson therefore he did it.’ He has maintaned his innocence throughout, but if I’ve learnt anything from prison dramas it’s that everyone’s innocent!
That’s a tough call especially when something like that happened so long ago. Innocence project seems to be a worthy cause, it is tough to decide whether to save an innocent person or to punish a guilty one?
The innocence project does sound like a worth while group and I’m sure in many cases they will be able to help some truly innocent people as technology improves enough that questionable evidence can be thrown out or misstatements can be verified to be false. In the case above I can see where advancements in the understanding of how fires start, spread and are sustained could help but I think that’s only half of the story.
Without a crime scene left to analyse, this many years later, then the other half of the story is likely to be long gone.
Not to get away from the point of the article but yes, I think that’s a big issue some of this sounds like the group knows it can sweep some evidence under the rug because enough time has passed that it can’t be recovered. Sure they probably have photos of the crime scene that the original investigators took but if techniques and best practices have changed enough that those photos don’t carry the weight that they did at trial I can see that being an issue. As time passes and technology helps us advance processes many older cases are going… Read more »
Hopefully you’ll find the new article on changes in fire theory understanding in recent years of interest: https://www.ifsecglobal.com/author.asp?section_id=555&doc_id=559353&