I was reading the news today about the big brush fires in Palm Springs and how they knew the fire were caused by an arsonist. I'd like to know how investigators can figure that out when any evidence would seem to be destroyed by the fire itself.
2006-10-27 10:22:07 · 11 answers · asked by Sean 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
By tracing the burn back to the point of origin. remnants of what started the fire will remain, such as accelerant residue.
2006-10-27 10:25:53 · answer #1 · answered by jkc6229 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are lots ways. They have to start with finding the point where the fire began.They could find evidence of acelerant (sp?) like a gas can. But there's also burn patterns, appearance of flames (some chemicals cause smoke and flames to appear a certain way). If the fire started in an area that is not usually occupied by the public (ie an area where an accidental fire could occur) and there was no chance of lightening striking then arson would be an option.
2006-10-27 10:38:38 · answer #2 · answered by Maria S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In some cases the fire does destroy evidence that would be very helpful. However there is normally evidence left at the origin of every fire that is used to determine the cause. I won't describe what that would be or how it is collected just in case there are any arsonist reading this.
2006-10-27 10:28:58 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They look for clues as to where it started mostly. A fire that starts in the middle of a barn is less likely to be arson than a fire that started on an outside wall. They also check over any remaining wiring to see if it was improperly installed or tampered with.
If there is doubts they also take samples of ashes where the fire started and send them to a lab to look for signs of incendiary compounds (like gas, K-1, lighter fluid or some other flammable compound.) Each has it's own unique chemical traces and from this they determine the cause of the fire.
There are other things they look for as well, such as more natural causes, candles, lanterns, smoking in bed, stove left on and such.
2006-10-27 10:30:47 · answer #4 · answered by my_iq_135 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You would be surprised at the sophistication of forensic science.
For example, using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, a small spot of accelerant can be identified with no doubt. Further, the residue can be matched to a source, like a gas can in the arsonist's shed.
Like the others said, the fire is readily traced back to its origin. Only the most exotic fires fully consume everything. The uncommoness of that type of fire is a big clue in itself.
2006-10-27 10:37:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some things are not destroyed by fire, like empty gas cans, broken bottle pieces, etc. They can usually find evidence if it is arson.
2006-10-27 10:26:48 · answer #6 · answered by smartypants909 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because they can tell if an accelerant was used by the way the burn pattern is. Fires are like fingerprints in that no two are the same. Each burn pattern tells a story, and that is what most people don't realize.
2006-10-27 10:28:55 · answer #7 · answered by Amanda SSS 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are literally hundreds of different signs that they look for, from accelerant stains to the way glass has broken. Yahoo search it and see if there are some technical sites on it.
2006-10-27 10:26:16 · answer #8 · answered by Jeep Driver 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They find the origin and can tell what started it usually matches a lighter gasoline.etc They are trained on what to look for
2006-10-27 10:30:53 · answer #9 · answered by calieyecandy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certain accelerants leave behind evidence. Also burn patterns are another clue.
2006-10-31 01:21:43 · answer #10 · answered by Eddie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋