Quote:
Originally posted by IvySpice
I am confident that arson investigators know more about this than we do. The article didn't say that there was no evidence of any kind. It said that they had ruled out other causes. If the evidence were inconclusive, they'd say the cause was a mystery (they often do say this). They don't start up a huge homicide investigation unless they have real reason to suspect foul play.
Ivy
|
No they don't. I know for a fact that some of them are wrong. Last year there was a fire at my school. The local building inspector accused the student tenants of contributing to the fire. The following week the state police fire marshall did an inspection of his own and totally contradicted the local building inspectors conclusions.
This reminds me of the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. When she first disappeared the police automatically assumed that the parents were responsible. They spent most of their time investigating the parents. They leaked stories to the press about the parents drug use and fact that they were part of some swingers club. When everything was said and done the police didn't know sh*t. Their original assumptions were 100% wrong.
Back to the original point. What evidence is there of arson? The fact that they don't know the cause? If they don't know the cause then how can they know it is arson?