You’re the First Officer at a Suspicious Scene,
You’ll Be Glad You Read...
on the scene of a fire, and you’ve just finished getting it under
control. Your crew is completing overhaul, but something has been
nagging at you. What
is it about this fire? The operation went well...no one was hurt...there
were no victims that had to be rescued. Then you remember...
This could be any fire...any time or anywhere. While a
number of fires are caused accidentally, every fire should be considered
“guilty” until proven innocent, until you fully understand its origin.
There are times when it may appear obvious what started the fire. Of course—it
was a cigarette. Or electrical malfunction. Or a stove. Or children playing
with matches. On the other hand, was it? Are you really sure?
to the National Fire Protection Association’s 2000 arson report, “Only
about 2 percent of set fires lead to convictions.” While there are a number
of factors that contribute to this low figure, one of the first steps
in building a successful prosecution is identifying that a fire may indeed
have been deliberately set. If the cause of a fire is not accurately determined
at the very beginning, then there may be no perceived need to follow up
and attempt to determine who had the means, motive and opportunity to
reports that arson fires are at a 22-year low. However, despite this fact,
incendiary and suspicious fires are the largest cause of property damage
in the United States.
that the company officer have an understanding of some of the basics behind
arson and arsonists. Just as in emergency medicine, if the responder has
an understanding of a disease, the symptoms will help in diagnosing the
Question of Motives
are generally six recognized motives for arsonists:
One of the frequent targets of vandalism-motivated arsonists is schools.
Arsonists who fall into this category are the thrill-seekers, or people
who are looking for attention.
which can include personal, societal, institutional or group retaliation.
Concealment. Arson is a useful tool, and can aid and abet a primary
crime being committed. That crime can range from theft to homicide, with
the fire being used to hide the crime.
Arsonists can either profit directly from setting the fire, by collecting
on an insurance policy, for example, or indirectly by eliminating a money-losing
Arson can be a weapon for political purposes. Targets include politically
controversial sites, such as abortion clinics and mink farms.
physical indicators, there is a wealth of information that can be obtained
from witnesses who are at the scene during firefighting operations. These
are very crucial witnesses, because they may have valuable information,
but are probably going to leave the premises as soon as the fire is over
and there isn’t anything left to watch.
officer can approach these people and try to learn if anyone has information
that could be of value and whether further investigation is needed. If
no effort is made to talk to these people, the critical information they
might have is going to walk away when they do.
that 90 percent of all the information we process is received subconsciously.
Bearing in mind that both witnesses and suspects may be present at the
fire scene, the following are some suggestions for the officer who needs
to quickly identify which persons should be interviewed and what may be
learned from them:
observations are crucial. It can prove invaluable if first responders
are able to capture images of the people present in the crowd. Many arsonists
have been identified simply by being observed on-scene at different fires.
Having a photographic record of who is present can allow you to identify
and interview individuals later, if necessary.
• In sizing
up the crowd, trust your instincts. Studies of arsonists suggest that
you should first pay attention to someone who is alone in the crowd. If
you do start to focus on someone, you should consider the following two
questions when observing and analyzing their behavior:
behavior EXPECTED or EXCESSIVE?
behavior CONSISTENT or INCONSISTENT?
of this point occurred in a recent case where the parents of five children
who were killed in a fire were standing around outside the burning home,
and calmly asking bystanders for cigarettes while their children were
still trapped inside. This behavior was inconsistent with the actions
of most living creatures whose young are in the process of horribly dying.
• It’s important
to ask the right questions. Many upstanding people will not volunteer
information to law enforcement simply because they’re afraid or because
of their personal policy of “not getting involved,” “minding their own
business,” or “not being a snitch.” At the beginning of an investigation,
however, you may miss critical witnesses and information if you do not
ask the right questions, so it’s crucial that you make the effort as much
• Be direct
in asking questions. We’re not dealing with Miranda situations or complex
interview strategies at this point. Ask “Did anyone see anything?”
“Do you know who did this?” “What happened here?” “If
anyone has information, would they please help us?” This last question,
the request for help, is a powerful motivator for reluctant witnesses.
People are programmed to want to help one another and to do right. It
applies to the most saint-like of citizens and to the most sinister.
• It’s important
that you both listen and observe. Too often we all make the mistake of
asking a question and rather than devoting our full attention to the answer,
we are already thinking of what we will say or ask next. A great deal
of information is often revealed by how people answer our questions.
• A direct
question should receive a direct answer; and anything else should be considered
suspicious. In answer to the question “Do you know who started the fire?”
a truthful person would either say “yes” or “no.” Conversely, if the response
is a question, such as “Why do you think I would know who did it?” or
“Do you suspect me?” or “Why should I help you?” then the officer should
realize these are not direct answers and suggests that the speaker may
be concealing information.
• Other classic
indicators of deception are stalling mechanisms that the speaker uses
to “buy” time and consider what he should say. Examples include asking
you to repeat the question, or repeating the question himself. Stuttering,
coughing or clearing the throat may be used to buy precious seconds while
the speaker thinks of what to say.
• There are
times when indirect questioning is a valuable tactic, too. In response
to indirect questions, listen closely to what the subject says and again
ask yourself if what he is saying is consistent with what a person
who is truthful or not involved would say.
when most people are asked what the consequences should be for a person
who has committed a crime of violence, the answer usually is prosecution,
prison, and/or execution. A guilty person may say something such as “community
service” or that the offender needs help. Any answer that minimizes
the exposure to what would be considered normal punishment should be considered
can be seen in the response to the question “Is there any reason someone
would say they saw you at the scene prior to the fire?” An innocent person
will usually answer that with “no,” or “Well yeah, I work here and was
on duty at that time.” Suspicious responses could be “Let me talk to that
person”; “Who said that?” or “Well I did just happen to be in the
area last night buying groceries at 2 a.m.” (in a store 20 miles from
the one he usually uses!).
• Try to
observe and “read” the subject’s body language. A good rule of thumb is
to look for two or more odd body movements or other deceptive behaviors
within the three to five seconds that follow after a question. Examples
include excessive eye contact or breaks in eye contact, such as rapidly
blinking eyes. The person might cover his eyes, or look away in response
to specific questions.
• A deceptive
person is often frightened that he may reveal the truth by what he says.
Unconsciously, he may attempt to prevent this physically...by biting his
lips, coughing or swallowing, or even actually covering his mouth.
• There are
actions that a person will take without even being aware of them. These
can be invaluable clues. If a person says “no” while nodding his head,
you may consider that a “yes.” If a person is saying he is happy to speak
with you, yet you notice he’s holding his chin up with a middle finger,
you may well assume that he is not completely happy with you.
of all of these suggestions is that no single behavior proves deception,
but a number of these indicators, when displayed at a relevant point in
a conversation, can be significant.
officer can play a critical role in a fire in more ways than just suppressing
the fire and rescuing victims. By being able to “size up” the need for
an investigation, the officer can be instrumental in helping to identify
a potential arson fire and contribute significantly to the conviction
of this person. Even if your department has assigned fire investigators
who will arrive and determine the cause, those few initial moments may
provide significant clues that you can observe and record for the investigators
when they do arrive. We need to improve upon that 2 percent conviction
rate, and you can be a key component in making that change. NF&R
is the principal writer for writer-tech.com, a technical writing firm.
He is the former chief fire investigator for the National Fire Protection
Association, was a fire protection engineer for the Phoenix Fire Department,
and a firefighter for the Amherst, Mass., Fire Department. He has been
involved in the development of interFIRE VR from its inception. He can
be reached at email@example.com
Tunkel has been a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms for 13 years. His current assignment is as a criminal profiler
with the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI
Academy in Quantico, Va.
Download this document
in PDF format.
So what are the indicators that every officer should consider
when sizing up a fire scene from an origin-and-cause perspective? What
are the indicators that will help determine if further investigation is
warranted? There are a number of them, but taken individually, they are
not definitive indicators. However, several of them—taken together—might
raise a “red flag” for the officer. We’ve organized 23 of these indicators
into a list you can detach and refer to later.
Some of these
called in the alarm? (What kind of information did they give to the
dispatcher? Was it overly detailed, or did it include information that
the average caller wouldn’t know?)
you were pulling up on the scene, what color was the smoke and the fire?
(Was it an unusual color, considering the fuel that was burning? Where
was it coming from? Multiple locations? Were there any unusual sounds,
such as explosions?)
you delayed in responding because of a false alarm or a small fire, such
as a trash fire? (Or were there barriers, such as locked fences or
obstacles, that slowed your attack? Had the hydrant been tampered with?
These tactics could be used to allow the fire more time to grow.)
there anyone in the crowd that you have seen at fires before? (Did
anyone look as if they were behaving unusually?)
there any unusual evidence, such as containers, matches, lighters, etc.,
that might not normally be found in the area? (According to a joint
study conducted by the ATF and FBI, over 50 percent of the serial arsonists
studied left items at the scene of their fires.)
doors been propped open, or holes made in floors or walls, to help accelerate
the spread of the fire from one area to another?
there any vehicles leaving the scene as you pulled up, or shortly after
you arrived? (Most people are going to stay to watch a fire, rather
you been to this property before? (Does it have a history of fires?
This could be an indicator of someone attempting to burn the building,
either for profit or for revenge.)
there signs of forced entry such as broken doors, locks or windows?
(If the fire is determined to be incendiary, the lack of any evidence
of forcible entry can be as important as its existence.)
there multiple points of origin? (To ensure greater destruction, and
to make suppression efforts more difficult, an arsonist could set multiple
fires throughout a building.)
a burglar alarm sounding when you arrived? (If it was equipped with
an alarm, did it go off when you made entry? If not, why not?)
the building’s fire alarm or sprinkler system impaired in some way?
(An arsonist could do this to ensure that the fire was not detected or
suppressed until it had a chance to do significant damage.)
you smell anything unusual?
the behavior of the fire unusual? (Did it take an unusual amount of
time or water to get it under control, considering what should normally
have been burning?)
the fire start in an unusual location where there would normally not be
any source of ignition? (For example, did the fire start in a pile
of debris outside the building and then extend into the building.)
was the owner’s behavior when he or she arrived? (Unusually calm?
Extreme mood swings? How was he dressed? For example, if the fire occurred
in the middle of the night, was the owner impeccably groomed upon arrival?)
the neighbors have any information that might point to this being an unusual
fire? (Arguments, past fires, etc.)
the contents seem appropriate? (For example, was anything missing
that should normally be in place, such as stock or equipment? Were the
clothes closets empty?)
the windows covered to delay the fire being seen from the exterior?
(This would give the fire a chance to grow before being detected.)
anyone taking pictures or videotape of the fire when you arrived?
there unusual burn patterns? (Trailers that would lead the fire from
one area to another may leave a distinctive pattern on the floor, as could
the property for sale, or in distress? (Is it under any orders for
repairs to be made? Having a fire might be a convenient method to avoid
water was applied, did the fire react in a different way than you would