Good Police Work or Simply Luck?
By Scott Fischer, SWAIT Contributor
What does it take to catch a serial wildland arsonist? Does flying around looking and waiting for an arsonist to start a fire sound like good police work? In the Interlochen Public Radio article entitled To Catch an Arsonist, by Daniel Wanchura, they describe an arson case in 1984 near the Great Lakes where investigators did just that. After a series of suspicious wildland fires with no “clues or leads,” and “out of desperation” investigators take to the air to catch the arsonist in the act.
1984 was the early days of wildland fire investigation techniques and training. Our modern FI210 Wildland Fire Origin and Cause Investigation Training didn’t come out until nearly 20 years later. In the article they mention there were previous fires but do not specify the total number of fires they believe were arson. The investigators used the process of elimination to determine these fires as arson. Today we would classify this as negative corpus which is no longer an accepted method of determining fire cause.
Determining arson as a cause does not require finding evidence of an ignition source. There are factors that can be used to help classify arson as a cause. Multiple factors would need to be considered. In this case they presumably looked at fire history for the area which can be one of the first indicators of a serial arson problem. The other factors they used were the fires started on the sides of the road and on straight aways to allow visibility of other vehicles from a distance. Both would fit into the arson factor “areas with low detection risk”. Caution should be used when applying this factor as this area was remote and likely had little to no daily traffic. This factor tends to apply to areas with a regular traffic pattern. Based on these factors alone, the investigators should have classified the fires as undetermined. If additional evidence were to surface later, they could reclassify them as arson.
Using modern investigative techniques, we would look for other evidence to link the fires. This all starts with high quality origin and cause investigations. With multiple fires, we could also look for temporal, geospatial, method of operation (MO), and evidentiary links. The investigators identified a geospatial area for the fires where they had set up surveillance. The fires were happening in proximity. A temporal analysis would look at fires occurring on similar days and times or lack of fires on specific days or times. The article does not mention any temporal analysis.
One of the suspects charged in this case described their MO as driving to the scene, choosing a location at random, and using matches to start the fires on both sides of the road. The use of matches would require them to exit the vehicle and likely dispose of the lit match at the scene. Based on their MO, the suspects left tire and shoe print impressions and likely burned matches. The tire and shoe print impressions, and the ignition scenario (use of a match) could link multiple fires together. Additional evidence could surface as well. Did they drop anything from the vehicle when they exited like trash or personal items. These items, including the potential for DNA and fingerprints, could link the suspect(s) to one or more fires.
When considering the motive for starting the fire, one of the suspects mentioned they started the fire for fun. Generally, motive should not be used until later in an investigation and prosecution. Motive can be used to help show intent of the arsonist. Many state and local arson related charges have an intent component. Often motive will never be determined unless the suspect tells the investigators or someone else. In this case, based on the limited information in the article and the statements from one of the suspects, they likely fall within the excitement motive. Excitement generally falls within the emotion-based typology. Excitement motive relates to fires set to satisfy an emotional need to create excitement. Subsets include curiosity, thrills, attention, and recognition. But was this their actual motive for starting the fires? Were they using this as an excuse once they were caught? If the investigators had been able to link them to additional fires, they may have been able to have a clearer picture of motive.
The article mentions a firefighter death two years prior but does not give enough information on whether the fire was found to have been arson. If the fire was arson, then, in many jurisdictions, the death of the firefighter would be considered murder. The investigators were convinced the fires in the spring of 1984 were arson but do not mention the previous years. When examining fire history, investigators should go back at least five years with the potential of going back 10 or more years. With growing populations and increased public land use, it may be hard to determine if the fire activity is a function of population growth or increased use of an area, especially in the wildland urban interface, or if there is an arson problem. Typically, within 5-10 years, there may be a noticeable increase especially if the arsonist is starting many fires. In this case, with the firefighter death, investigators should examine all fires going back 2-3 years even if the causes were determined something other than arson.
Once pattern linkages begin to come out in the investigation, investigators should look at fires for the previous years to see if any fit within the pattern even if they have been classified as something other than arson. Investigators should review all fire investigation reports, look at the evidence and how those fire causes were determined. There are many examples of non-arson fires being reclassified after further scrutiny in the context of new evidence from additional fires.
Was the use of a plane to catch the suspects in this case luck or good police work? While planes are a useful, they generally are used after a suspect is identified and under surveillance. In this case it was simply luck. Today, once a target area is identified, the use of static surveillance cameras (i.e. game cameras, license plate readers etc.) would be the investigative tool of choice. Generally, driving/flying around looking for someone to commit a crime is not a good investigative tactic. Solid police work and investigative tactics solve crimes. In wildland fire, this all starts with good origin and cause investigations.