Arson Conclusion Based on 'No Accidental Cause Found'
A 2010 sedan is damaged by fire in the rear passenger area. The investigator, a certified fire investigator with 15 years of experience, examines the vehicle for 90 minutes. He finds no electrical fault in the rear wiring harness, no fuel leaks, and no mechanical defects. He collects no debris samples and does not examine the underbody or fuel tank. In his report he states: 'The fire cause is classified as incendiary. The ignition source is unknown. All accidental causes were eliminated.' The vehicle's owner had recently increased the insurance coverage and was behind on payments. The investigator's report relies on the owner's financial motive and the absence of accidental causes. The insurance company asks you to review the file.
1. Identify the methodological errors in the investigator's conclusion under NFPA 921.
Read the worked answer
The main error is the negative-corpus conclusion: the investigator classified the fire as incendiary because he could not find an accidental cause. Under NFPA 921, that is not sufficient. An incendiary classification requires affirmative evidence of an intentionally set fire, such as multiple separate origins, pour patterns, an ignition device, or other physical evidence. The examination was also incomplete: 90 minutes is short for a vehicle fire, no debris samples were collected, and the underbody and fuel tank were not examined. Those are plausible areas for electrical, fuel, or exhaust-related causes. Reliance on the owner's financial motive compounds the problem: motive may support an interview lead, but it is not evidence of fire cause. The report should have stated the cause as undetermined or continued the investigation.
2. Explain what 'negative corpus' means and why it is unreliable.
Read the worked answer
Negative corpus means concluding that a fire was incendiary because all accidental causes were eliminated, without positive evidence of an intentional fire. It is unreliable because elimination depends entirely on the completeness and quality of the investigation. A cause that was missed, or evidence that was destroyed or not collected, will be wrongly treated as eliminated. It also invites confirmation bias: once the investigator learns of a motive, the absence of an accidental cause feels like proof. NFPA 921 warns that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A scientifically defensible conclusion must be based on affirmative evidence that survives hypothesis testing, not on the failure to find something else.
3. Outline the steps you would take to properly investigate or review this case.
Read the worked answer
I would reopen the examination and treat all causes as open. Steps: (1) document the vehicle's condition and fire patterns before further disturbance; (2) examine the rear passenger area, wiring harness, connectors, and any aftermarket accessories; (3) inspect the fuel tank, fuel lines, and underbody for leaks or collision damage; (4) collect debris samples from the lowest points and submit them for ignitable-liquid analysis; (5) examine for an ignition source and any foreign material; (6) interview the owner and witnesses without leading, and verify the insurance timeline; (7) use NFPA 921's scientific method to formulate and test hypotheses. If no affirmative evidence of an intentional fire is found, the correct classification is undetermined, not incendiary.