Arson

Talk to the fire Marshall but unless they saw someone strike the match they are pretty much useless. It's nothing like on TV. They take months to do ANYTHING. My house was torched (my ex is the main suspect) and it has been 15 months and still an "open investigation". Arson is easy to prove, burn pattern is easy to discern where the fire started and dogs used to smell for accelerant but like I said unless they see someone strike the match, hard to prove. They check alibis but after that good luck even getting them on the phone. It's up to you to keep calling to nudge them along.

The fire marshal will start investigating as soon as it is safe to do so. If the officer in charge of the fire has suspicions, the fire marshal will be on scene before the fire is put out. Usually the fire marshal will wait until daylight to actually start the interior investigation, so that he can see what's going on as well as being safe. The initial investigation will usually establish what probably happened.

Your character might be told at that point, or she may be called in for questioning, trying to determine what your character knows or whether she lit the fire herself. She should know within 48 hours as to the probable cause. Your character needs to notify her insurance company and it is going to want a primary finding.

The fire marshal and maybe the police will open a file to begin an investigation. Some of the wood from the fire will be sent to the lab for chemical analysis, comparison with other fires will be done, and people talked to. There is usually very little to tie an arsonist to a fire, as fingerprints and DNA get destroyed. Unfortunately, normally you have to wait until someone starts talking. One thing about a condo is there is probably going to be cameras and it would be likely the arsonist was on at least one of the cameras.

It's not unusual for fire fighters to discuss whether a fire was arson as they're fighting it.

Depending upon how smart the arsonist is makes for how hard it is to determine whether it was arson. It's not that difficult to start a fire with minimal or no trace.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

She'd be told most likely when she was questioned. Once it was decided during the questioning that she had a low probability of having been the arsonist, they're going to want to ask her about possible suspects, or people who she had trouble with.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

TMarie said:

As for the indication of arson, I'm going with signs of forced entry and traces of gas. Would that be determined the same night, or take another day or two to find?

Click to expand...

Following day to maybe a second day would tell this. She would be a suspect and be questioned, usually within the first day or two, so she'd know it was arson. How, why and who might take a bit of time though.

Jeff

Just to throw this in - there's been a revolution in fire science in the past few decades, to the point that a lot of what was "common sense" about how to tell if a fire was intentionally set is dead wrong. This fascinating (if long) article at Slate deals with it in one particular case, to give you some ideas.

Forced entry is an iffy. The fire fighters are known to force entry. So that has to be ruled out. Glass tends to blow out from the fire. So be very careful with your evidence of forced entry.

Gasoline produces three possible sources of discovery. The first fire fighters on the scene might notice the smell of gas (understand that this also reflects response time). The burn pattern might indicate a flash fire, typical of gasoline, where the fire burns hot and quick, and then disappears. Understand there are other causes of flash fires, and I remember one house where the entire interior flashed before anyone knew the building was on fire. Evidence of the flash was in every room, so that even though only the kitchen burned, the whole interior of the house had to be redone. If fire fighters see a forced entry, or signs of a flash they looks like gas, they'll let the incident commander know.

The third way, and most likely, is that the next day the fire marshal will see the signs of gasoline, and do some quick tests to confirm.

Of course, you can also have the arsonist leave a can of gasoline in the living room. It happens.

For her to be questioned the night of the fire, you need a big sign it is arson.

Really a large range in questioning approaches, depending in part what the police and fire marshal thinks. But it would not be unreasonable for some primary questioning at the scene on the night of the fire, and more extensive questioning the next day at the police station.

Relationships between the fire marshal and police vary widely. Some will conduct their own investigation and ignore the other. Some work together.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

This thread reminds me of the SVU episode "Torched". I would take any TV with a grain of salt, but it may give you some ideas.

Payout from the insurance company depends on a lot of different things. Some insurance companies are prompt payers, other insurance companies pay when hell freezes over. This is a condo fire so another question is whether the adjoining condos were damaged. If your character can be shown to be responsible for the fire, than she may have to pay damages for the other condos. If her damages are at the max for the policy, the insurance company may over less. Some insurance companies are known to offer a lot less.

I've seen insurance payouts within a few days to a few years.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

Coming at this question from another direction, what are the most likely causes of accidental fires, with no human intervention? Faulty electrical wiring or outlets would be one, I'd think. My sister-in-law's house caught fire a few years ago owing to a faulty construction of a fireplace flue.* Lightning, maybe, but then you'd pretty much know from the weather itself. A gas or fuel leak of some kind, undetected. But these kinds of fires generally leave indications of the place of origin. Another possibility, human caused but quite possibly delayed for some time, would be smoking materials left smoldering in a bed or sofa or chair.

Fires lacking in characteristics that fit those scenarios are automatically considered suspicious, I would think. Accelerants leave traces, nearly always, which can be detected by competent fire investigators. But scientific investigations do take time. We scientists are slow, careful bastards.

And, for a detective, motivation of possible suspects is a significant issue, too.

caw

* The fire smoldered unnoticed for several hours before fully breaking out in the middle of a cold December night. I happened to be visiting over the Christmas holidays, and staying at my father-in-law's house just a block away, and it happens that he was a retired fire chief for the town, and had a working police/fire radio monitor, so we knew about it as soon as the call was placed. Fortunately, everyone got out, and they were able to keep the house from being a total loss, although there was a lot of damage.

raelwv said:

Just to throw this in - there's been a revolution in fire science in the past few decades, to the point that a lot of what was "common sense" about how to tell if a fire was intentionally set is dead wrong. This fascinating (if long) article at Slate deals with it in one particular case, to give you some ideas.

Click to expand...

I was just gonna post that. It's good info to know whenever the story is set as knowing how things were done and how they are done now is always good.

blacbird said:

Coming at this question from another direction, what are the most likely causes of accidental fires, with no human intervention? Faulty electrical wiring or outlets would be one, I'd think. My sister-in-law's house caught fire a few years ago owing to a faulty construction of a fireplace flue.* Lightning, maybe, but then you'd pretty much know from the weather itself. A gas or fuel leak of some kind, undetected. But these kinds of fires generally leave indications of the place of origin. Another possibility, human caused but quite possibly delayed for some time, would be smoking materials left smoldering in a bed or sofa or chair.

Click to expand...

I was just going to note that there seem to have been a lot of fires reported in the last couple years arising from faulty clothes driers left running overnight.

You want a weird accidental fire that happened to a friend of mine that could also look suspicious?

He left a stand mounted magnifier on a desk that he used to paint D&D minis. (Think giant magnifying glass mounted to an arm with an elbow on a base so you could move it into position and it would stay).

The sun shone throw the window, hit the magnifer, and the beam charred a wooden pencil in half and started to skorch the wooden desk. There was newspaper lining the desk, but fortunately the beam hit an area not covered by the paper. There was also paint, thinner, a roll of paper towels and some rags on the desk.

The room was filling with smoke but fortunately his roommate came home before everything combusted or before my friend died of smoke inhalation. (He was sleeping in a nearby bedroom as he worked nights).

That easily coulda started a fire that could have been looked as suspiciously with the paint, thinner, paper and other accelerants and combustables right there.