Reasons Someone Can Become a

Wrongly Accused Person

GENERAL OVERVIEW
[General Overview] [Misleading Information] [Experts Part1] [Experts Part2] [The Investigation]

To further enhance my point regarding expert witnesses, I will refer to the second type involved in the case against me. To some it might seem like labouring a point however given the impact of their testimonies both the courts and public eye alike, I do feel that it warrants my experience being more extensively aired.

In the previous page I highlighted that to a degree, evidence from these experienced people are still subjective and open to the influence of non-scientific information which could be misleading. Since in the area of ‘fire experts’ there are more scientific means at their disposal, you would imagine that their reports and testimonies could be relied upon. However depending on the circumstances they too rely on non-scientific information provided by either the police or the statements they provide to determine what their scientific findings actually mean. It is also particularly important in this regard that the scene of any incident is preserved in its entirety prior to their assessments. Sometimes the smallest piece reveals the biggest clue and ultimately the proper answer, if it is no longer there when they arrive and they are only made aware of it later by other means its worth is significantly reduced. By this time they will probably have formed an opinion based on its absence and be unwilling to be persuaded, have you ever tried to tell an expert that he/she is wrong? It’s the equivalent of you trying to tell a doctor what’s wrong with you.

Now I assume that the procedure followed regarding the fire investigation of my home will be broadly the same as any other incident of a similar type. This particular aspect of enquiries underpins many of the points I raised before regarding varying degrees of expertise and how things change as the scene becomes more and more disturbed or opinions become influenced.

In the first instance, an experienced member of the local fire brigade with additional training will survey the area in its raw state. Although this person will have seen the results of fire many times before, they will essentially only be qualified to recognise where the fire(s) started approximately. They will provide some form of report but ultimately it will merely state that there was a fire in a given location and how far the spread of it extends. The person who provided the initial assessment of the scene in my case noted a single fire which caused extensive damage in the area immediately surrounding it and another area affected as a result of heat damage. Please bear in mind that although this person was in some respects the least qualified, he was the only one to view the locus as it truly was. In any case the overall result was a conclusion of one fire and extensive damage as a result of its spread. The important point to note here is the initial impression by someone much more knowledgeable than the average lay person was of a single fire source, you will observe a gradual change in opinion as you read on.

There then followed a survey by a more experienced regional member of the fire service, it is worth noting at this point that there was no significant input of witness accounts by the police so his opinion along with the previous one are made on an as seen basis with no outside influence. It was at this point that a more exact location of the seat of fire was established, rather than stating that it was in the area under the stairs, it was pinpointed to a precise spot (to within about 10 inches) directly under the second or third step behind what remained of a small 2 drawer unit. The ability to ascertain this was scientifically explained by the level of charring to the carpet and flooring underneath which was not evident in any other area. This was corroborated when he noted the smoke pattern on the underside of the stairs which also showed that the fire had originated at that position. I would invite you to consider how accessible the area under such a low point of a set of stairs is, particularly if blocked by furniture such as the drawers I mentioned. Being aware of the exact starting point is hugely significant, I imagine in all cases but definitely in mine when it is considered along with other evidence. His assessment of what he had seen was broadly the same as the views expressed in point 1, with the single difference regarding the second area affected. His greater knowledge gave him the ability to suggest that the second area affected was indeed a second location of fire although he agreed that it was as a result of fortuitous spread from the first, which is to say that the first/main area of fire was the solitary cause of the second. So a more qualified analysis, without any outside opinions playing any part, resulted in the same conclusion. Two skilled people, same results with the exception of the type of damage in the second area, but agreeing the reason for it i.e. fortuitous spread.

Within the next few days forensic specialists arrived and collected samples of various articles from both areas affected by the fire. The tests performed on each can be considered almost wholly scientific but yielded absolutely no forensic evidence of any kind to connect me with the fire. Significantly there was no form of accelerant detected, one of the most common indications of a deliberate fire. Fingerprint analysis was performed on an envelope which was suggested later to have been used as a ‘paper taper’ to ignite the fire, yet none of my fingerprints were on it, clearly there were prints found, the postman didn’t get it through the letterbox without touching it, and it hadn’t found its way onto the device where it had been sitting underneath the bedroom window by itself but none of them were mine. In short there was no forensic evidence linking me to the fire.

Another few days later the primary fire expert arrived to examine the locus. By this time the scene was nothing like its original state, many items had been moved and the site of the fire had been extensively excavated when ascertaining the exact location of the seat of fire. There had been ample time for police to collate witness statements and an opinion had already been formed by those least qualified to make one. The findings of his report are complicated but can easily be simplified without losing the essence of its content.

SCIENTIFIC VIEWPOINT

1. There was agreement with the assessment of the view expressed in point 2 in so far as there were 2 areas of fire but expanded on those areas to state that the possibility existed for the fire underneath the stairs to fortuitously ignite the second area. However the same possibility did not exist in reverse, i.e. the second area affected by fire was not extensive enough to have fortuitously spread to the area under the stairs.

2. The second area affected by fire which was in the bedroom where I had been found posed no risk to life. A point that was corroborated by the firemen who rescued me, they noted that the sooty deposits around my nose and mouth were inconsistent with the level at which the smoke existed in the room. Another fireman had confirmed the extent of smoke found in the upstairs area I was trying to reach stating that it was not possibly to see even an arm’s length in front of his face. Fortunately firemen are equipped with breathing apparatus and face masks which prevent the effects of smoke further limiting their abilities to see or affect their consciousness.

3. There was no scientific way to know which area started first, the only method available to decide this was an assessment of witness statements the details of which I will expand upon later when I discuss which non-scientific input this expert received.

4. The fire underneath the stairs could either have been started deliberately OR accidentally, carelessly discarded cigarettes could in no way be ruled out. It was noted in court that should this be the case, initially the fire would be that of a smouldering one and that the only initial indications that it existed would be degree of smoke and a certain amount of heat as it developed. (Please note what I stated in the about page regarding what I discovered on hearing the smoke alarm which was also noted in my accounts to the police consistently on more than one occasion). It was also noted in court that the time involved in a smouldering fire developing into burning fire could be from 15 minutes to several hours largely depending on any changes in ventilation which occur and upon the introduction of fresh air was likely to progress into a serious fire in a very short period of time i.e. minutes rather than hours. (Note how many times the outside door was opened, when I put my older two children out, allowing more fresh air in to feed the fire each time.)

5. There was evidence of burning embers from the fire in the hall entering the bedroom including at the site of the second fire which was at the bedroom curtains. It was noted that the possibility existed for those embers to ignite the curtains affected though also stated that since they hung vertically it was unlikely but could not be ruled out but was more likely to occur on a horizontal surface.

6. Other than the point raised above there could be no accidental cause of fire in the second area. Another more plausible explanation existed but was not available to him at that time since the evidence involved had been removed and he was only made aware of it during my legal teams’ precognition, a point he was considerably annoyed about. One which when questioned in court transformed his testimony from what until that point had been sure and certain to one which was evidently scrambling to explain it in a way which didn’t contradict what he had earlier said.

7. So, in deciphering the scientific findings it was clearly important to ascertain which area of fire had begun first, since there was no scientific method of doing so this was to involve the input of witness statements which I will detail below.

NON-SCIENTIFIC INPUT.

1. ThereClearly he should have been made available of the details described in my statements. That I was not aware of any flames, only a considerable amount of smoke and some heat. That the outside door had been opened and closed several times when I had put the 2 children out and that when I re-entered the house it was suddenly significantly worse. That I could neither see nor breathe as I attempted to go up the stairs this time around and was quickly overcome. I will refer you to point 4 above regarding the nature of a smouldering fire once more to consider fully the implications of the information he was given by me alone. Sadly however I am aware that with regard to my own account his report referenced certain comments supposedly made by myself which never were. These references were not taken from my statements but provided by the officer who escorted him during his examination of the locus, given what you will know if you have read the about page regarding my daughters testimony in court, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to where this discrepancy crept in. All I can say is that I know what I have consistently said, what I have never said, seen the copies of my own statements and the comments in the report are nowhere within them.

2. Having touched on the child witnesses accounts in the previous point it is appropriate to discuss their ones next. However there is particular difficulty in this area since much of it will only completely fall into place later when I discuss paragraphs 18 onwards of the Scottish government’s document concerning how child witnesses are interviewed in a section dedicated to investigative flaws. The most basic criteria of which were not met in this instance and would perhaps explain some of the erroneous information provided to the fire expert but by no means all of it. The fire report stated that both children’s accounts were consistent with each other but not with mine. However as I have repeatedly pointed out, I have seen all statements in detail and my son’s statement was broadly consistent with my own, my aunt was present when his statement was noted and can corroborate that it would have been even more consistent with my statements had it been noted fully. He had said “I couldn’t see daddy through the mist”, a comment he also made to others in the following weeks, that appeared nowhere in his statement although, “it was a little bit misty” did. My daughter’s statement was at odds with both my own and my son’s, notably that she said there had been no smoke, something which perhaps is best explained by her testimony in court when she confirmed the details of both other statements and clearly pointed out that she had said those things to the police lady. Coincidentally, although it was suggested in some documents that my wife had been present but was actually somewhere else entirely, no adult was present during the taking of her statement. I will leave you to form your own conclusions as to what that means particularly given the difference between statement and court testimony, but I have seen the leading questions which were asked prior to the answers which were noted. The importance of her statement can be seen in the following point as regards the final outcome of the fire report.

3. As shown in point 7 of the scientific section of the fire expert’s investigation, the need for information from witnesses was vital to ascertain whether it was one accidental fire which had caused a secondary fire. The fire under the stairs could cause the small fire in the bedroom but not the other way around so which started first was of paramount importance. Since all other witnesses could only provide information from either before me and my children were in bed or after the fire had been discovered by others, the only relevant accounts were those above. Two which noted either thick smoke (or mist as my son called it) but no flames, all of which noted that I’d told them they had to get out and one, my daughters which said there was no smoke. As a result, the dubious statement of a six year old interviewed with no adult present was used to deduce that there had been no smoke in the hall way when they left (despite other witnesses noting a smell of smoke on them and in their hair). With that assumed, the minor fire in the bedroom was decided to have started first which could not have caused the major fire in the hallway hence it must have been 2 deliberate fires! One which was started before I put the children out and one which was started after! Now anyone knowing the manner in which my daughter’s statement was conducted, the discrepancy between it and her testimony in court can see that a massive significance has been placed on a dubious account which ultimately decided the result of the report.

4. Other witness statements noted that shortly before my wife and the three older children left, various people had been smoking in the passage way next to the area under the stairs. Furthermore, one noted that an over laden ashtray in use had been placed on top of the small 2 drawer unit, which was positioned in the area identified to have been the exact starting point of the fire under the stairs. Something which was corroborated by another witness in court. Now given all of the information above this final point regarding the ashtray and its precise connection with the seat of fire, it is fair to say that it is far, far too much of a coincidence to be dismissed. Especially when taken along with the scientific notes regarding smouldering fires, the smoke but no flames, how it develops rapidly when air is introduced and the corroborating statements of myself, my son and my daughters testimony in court. I feel I could end there and leave little doubt that the fire was nothing more than a tragic accident, however there is more regarding this particular fire report that needs to be pointed out.

5. There was one final important piece of ‘non-scientific’ evidence which if proceedings had been carried out correctly would have formed part of the scientific evidence instead. I refer to point 5 above where it was noted that the embers could have ignited the curtains but were unlikely to given that they hung vertically, something which was much more likely to occur on a horizontal surface instead. Now I also revert to point 6 when I drew attention to evidence having been removed prior to the expert’s arrival. This physical evidence consisted of an envelope which had been resting horizontally on a printer directly underneath the curtains where the most scorching of the windowsill had been evident. However it was not there for him to see, he had been told that a paper taper had been removed from the area for forensic testing. I’m sure you can realise what effect that kind of remark would have on his subjective analysis of what little scientific evidence there was. What had been suggested to be a paper taper had in fact been the envelope from the printer with none of my finger prints found on it. This evidence should have been scientific evidence but now had become non-scientific in a sense due to its removal, but there is something much worse about it than that. Despite the various photographs of its position before the scene had been disturbed, he was never aware of the photographs showing where it was found and hence would not have been drawn to the burn marks which showed it had been resting on top of the printer when it had burned. He was only made aware of the pictures during his precognition by my defence team when asking questions about them who noted that he had been considerably annoyed about not being made aware of it at the time of his investigation. Our own experts concurred with his scientific observations but having been aware of the pictures of the envelope in its original position, had been able to survey the area in more detail. He had also taken time to look at the envelope itself and could state that the burning of it was inconsistent with it having been used as a paper taper. The burn marks on top of the printer showed that it had been resting there as it had burned and the absence of paper ash in any other place proved that at no point during its burning had it been in anywhere else. So in actual fact a horizontal flammable surface DID exist perhaps 1 or 2 inches directly below the curtains in an area that it is known burning embers were reaching due to the sooty deposits left by them striking the wall in the area. I would suggest that is as unlikely to be mere coincidence as the ashtray is to the seat of the single accidental fire.

Those are both the scientific facts and details of the actual relevant witness accounts which should have been involved in drawing a final conclusion. Sadly the removal of the physical evidence and photographic evidence of its position being made unavailable to him removed any possibility of a scientific conclusion being drawn from it leaving only the witness accounts to determine the end result. However the factual account of the witness evidence above is not reflected in the remarks quoted in the fire report itself. Divisive influences which should never have featured in a scientific report, all of which had to be censored before it was permissible to present a copy to the jury leaving a significant portion of it blacked out, in at least one case a whole page. So the final fire expert report essentially contained 2 options, a single accidental fire as per the first two opinions but with yet another possible reason as to how it fortuitously spread to cause another or the absolutely insane idea that anyone would do such a thing deliberately. Again I will leave you to draw your own conclusion as to where the influencing differences originate. Clearly I have my own opinion which I believe in due course will be proved, but it would be inappropriate to openly state what it is at this time.

So I will leave the section of expert witnesses by referring you to the report issued by the governments independent Law Commission regarding them and by making the suggestion that moves should be made to limit any form of expert evaluation to be limited to scientific findings alone. This would leave a jury free to draw logical conclusions based on how the testimonies of witnesses in court correlate with scientific possibilities after assessing for themselves how tangible each witness is, rather than being faced with an ‘expert’ who has been swayed by accounts, with no way of corroboration other than police say so, before being influenced by them.

[General Overview] [Misleading Information] [Experts Part1] [Experts Part2] [The Investigation]