On Nov 22, 6:45*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message

stuff snipped

* There is a difference between Natural Gas and Propane. With propane
being heavier than air a basement gas leak can go undetected,
smell-wise - and still explode. NG is a bit different - being lighter
than air the smell gets around a lot faster.

If the gas is leaking in the basement of an enclosed house, it would
probably escape through the attic vents or the chimney and be dispersed high
above the ground. *Then, since it's lighter than air it would rise up. *A
whole house could fill with gas without anyone at ground level having any
idea there was a leak.

While there's a whole lot of circumstantial evidence here, it's going to be
very hard to prove arson beyond a reasonable doubt short of toolmarks and
fingerprints on the tools that made those marks.

--
Bobby G.

How can you say it's going to be very hard to prove
when you don't have any idea of what the actual
evidence is? They could for example have already
found a timer or other device used for ignition and
have videos from the hardware store when the
arsonist bought it. Or
they could have witnesses who knew it was being
planned and what they were up to. Most criminals
are a lot dumber than you think.

Per Oren:
Fire forensics has made leaps and bounds in the science of fires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
--
Pete Cresswell

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:
stuff snipped

While there's a whole lot of circumstantial evidence here, it's going to
be
very hard to prove arson beyond a reasonable doubt short of tool marks
and
fingerprints on the tools that made those marks.

Ve haf vays of mecking the scene talk (grin). Computer trails to
websites about the workings of furnaces and/or furnace explosions past.
If there was a timer or ignition device for the purposes of alibi
establishment (or even just a lack of death wish on the part of the
person setting up the blast) that can be traced back. There are many
others. These guys aren't rocket scientists, so they likely left some
kind of trail. The main problem will probably be finding it in the
destruction.

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem. I think you'll recall my post a while back
about how all the handbooks of arson investigation, particularly regarding
various accelerants, are being rewritten because many were based on
anecdote, not science. The most damning was the discovery that what
investigators had previously classified as accelerant trails on the floor
were actually a peculiar distillation effect of the hot gas from melted
plastic furnishing condensing when they met the cooler floor surface. They
discovered this after one of the many test fires they set at the nearby Fire
Institute at UMd.

People were executed on the basis of faulty data that "arose" from examining
test fires from a time when there was very little plastic in a burning home.
So the arson investigation profession took a big hit, along with a number of
other forensic profession as more and more judges are requiring scientific
and not tradition or simulation based testimony. You may have heard of
Texas' recently discredited "dog lineup" that has been laughed out of
court - finally.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...-evidence.html

AT least when I was involved, the IFD arson guys were good and the
ATF arson team was made up of wizards.

Somehow, a lot of these guys fail to detect the causes of deliberately set
fires which makes their "hit" rate in past cases very suspicious. Reminds
me of why cops score very high on detecting deception: they believe
everyone's lying. Their apparently accuracy as human lie detectors is
offset by their inability to detect the truth as often as other people.

Many accidental fires look very much like arson and vice-versa. I've sat
through the testimony of a lot of fire and accident reconstruction
specialists and have only been mildly impressed by some and complete
flabbergasted by the chutzpah of others when it came to try to assess fault.
Perhaps the prosecutors find more credible witnesses for criminal cases but
I doubt it. As OJ showed, with enough money a good defense attorney could
discredit Diogenes and Abe Lincoln both.

These cases are hard to prove (beyond appeal) because it's rare they can
find a witness or a CCTV recording showing the defendant setting the fire.
After a decade of CSI watching, jurors come to expect evidence that exists
only on TV shows. No witnesses, to a good lawyer, is almost all the
reasonable doubt you need. As you noted, when the crime scene is blown all
to hell and evidence has not been collected with the same care as it would
in a typical murder crime scene, you've got another evidentiary hill to
climb.

These people were out of town, apparently, when it happened. Making it even
harder for a jury to convict unless a timer device with a direct connection
to the defendant is found. Plenty of people I've seen post on Usenet
wouldn't hesitate to "Ben Quick" one of their neighbor once they realized
they weren't home. As other posters have noted, some of those evil people
have immolated themselves along with their target. As my WWII vet editor
told me: "Never underestimate stupidity." If in doubt, see the thread where
two of our regulars are arguing who is more stupid. (-:

--
Bobby G.

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message

stuff snipped

While there's a whole lot of circumstantial evidence here, it's going to
be
very hard to prove arson beyond a reasonable doubt short of toolmarks and
fingerprints on the tools that made those marks.

IMO- There are too many people involved. Somebody will cut a deal.

Yep, why rely on science when human weakness is so vast?. The problem, of
course, is that it's well known prosecutors can get whatever testimony they
need by jacking someone up for some other crime (drug possesion's a
favorite) and then "leveraging" the desired testimony out of them for a
promise of immunity.

--
Bobby G.

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Oren:
Fire forensics has made leaps and bounds in the science of fires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

Pete, you dang sumnobitch, you stole my fire! (-:

That case, and a few others, have resulted in a very fundamental
re-examination of what was standard practice in fire investigation. For
those too lazy to click, Wiki did a pretty good summary showing two of the
"givens" in fire investigation (glass crazing and accelerant trails) that
are no longer accepted as fact:

Long after the original conviction, in 2004 Gerald Hurst, who has a Ph.D.
in chemistry, examined the arson evidence compiled by Manuel Vasquez, the
state deputy fire marshal. Hurst said that Vasquez was incorrect when he
said that the extreme heat of the fire (as evidenced by a melted aluminum
threshold) indicated that an accelerant was used, and said that experiments
prove that wood and liquid accelerant fires can burn with equal heat.
Hurst's own experiments showed that burning with an accelerant does not
leave the kind of brown stains that Vasquez claimed were created that way.
Hurst also said that the crazed glass that Vasquez said was caused by a
liquid accelerant had been found as a result of brush fires elsewhere.
Experiments showed that crazed glass was caused not by rapid heating but by
cooling, and that glass cooled by water from a fire hose was more likely to
have a crazed or cracked pattern. A $20,000 experimental house fire set
without an accelerant created the same pour patterns and V shaped pattern
that Vasquez attributed to the use of a liquid accelerant.

The methods and techniques fire investigators have relied on for almost half
a century were based on test burnings involving a 1950's built home and
furnishings. The amount of plastic used back then was miniscule compared to
how much plastic you find in a modern home.

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:28:24 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Oren:
Fire forensics has made leaps and bounds in the science of fires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

_Death by Fire_ is on PBS for online viewing (full episode). I
watched it there a second time and on television the first time.

Link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/

I never saw the original film: Incendiary: The Willingham Case

On Nov 22, 11:44*am, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:28:24 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Oren:
Fire forensics has made leaps and bounds in the science of fires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

_Death by Fire_ *is on PBS for online viewing (full episode). I
watched it there a second time and on television the first time.

Link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/

I never saw the original film: Incendiary: The Willingham Case

I just read a bit online about the Willingham case. Not sure
about the forensic evidence and a lot of that may have
been poorly done, but some of his actions and
statements as reported by witnesses sure were strange.
For example, he told a fire investigator that he poured
mens cologne down a hallway leading to the kids bedrooms
because they like the smell of it? Sure seems like
someone who knew an accelerant was used and trying to
come up with plausible deniability. And not very smart
either, with that story.....

wrote in message
...
On Nov 22, 6:45 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message

stuff snipped

There is a difference between Natural Gas and Propane. With propane
being heavier than air a basement gas leak can go undetected,
smell-wise - and still explode. NG is a bit different - being lighter
than air the smell gets around a lot faster.

If the gas is leaking in the basement of an enclosed house, it would
probably escape through the attic vents or the chimney and be dispersed
high
above the ground. Then, since it's lighter than air it would rise up. A
whole house could fill with gas without anyone at ground level having any
idea there was a leak.

While there's a whole lot of circumstantial evidence here, it's going to
be
very hard to prove arson beyond a reasonable doubt short of toolmarks and
fingerprints on the tools that made those marks.

--
Bobby G.

How can you say it's going to be very hard to prove
when you don't have any idea of what the actual
evidence is?

Because my dad was a forensic engineer who testified in a number of fire
cases. From that experience I can safely conclude that such cases are hard
to make. Even when they are won, they are often reversed on appeal when the
furor has died down and the case is examined dispassionately.

Fires destroy crucial evidence. Gas explosions even more so. Fire and
rescue crews comb through the debris, moving evidence and destroying the
evidentiary chain of custody. Neighbors rummage through the area, further
clouding the value of evidence collected afterwards. I don't need to know
what this case's particulars are to know how hard these cases are to make in
general just because of how they unfold.

They could for example have already found a timer or other device used for
ignition and
have videos from the hardware store when the arsonist bought it. Or they
could have witnesses who knew it was being planned and what they were up
to.

They could have found a video the perp made of him setting up a timed
ignitor, but it's not likely. All of what you suggest is possible. But
compared to a 7-11 robbery homicide with ballistics evidence, CCTV footage
of the perp with the gun, witnesses, etc. an arson case is hard to prove
unless you have direct evidence of the sort you mentioned.

Even if such equipment is found, you have to prove intent in a criminal
trial, and that's where things get sticky. Jurors know witnesses,
especially those getting a deal from the DA, can be coerced. They know that
many gas explosions have happened without any malice involved. They
probably know the gas company and city are looking hard to make sure they're
not blamed for the incident through some sort of negligence.

These are almost always hard cases to make. I agree, there are exceptions.
I saw a clip on TV from a CCTV camera that captured a man throwing a Molatov
cocktail at a store window but the bottle bounced back and engulfed him in
flames. That's a much easier case to make than this one where the alleged
perps were out of state and didn't end up in the ER covered with the smell
of gasoline and all their hair burned off.

Most criminals are a lot dumber than you think.

Don't worry, I never underestimate stupidity, either from criminals, DAs or
Usenet posters. (-:

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 20, 5:29*pm, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 11-20-2012 19:52, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:47:15 -0800 (PST), Harry K
The only difficult part would be trying to arrange it to *blow at a
specific time.

* *Even that is simple with a couple of timers, a remote valve, and an
ignitor. *Don't try it with british equipment though.

Appliance timer set to come on when you want the explosion to occur.

Set timer on gas oven to come on about to come on five minutes earlier.

Plugged into timer is igniting device.

TRIVIAL for investigators to detect.

I know how to make it nearly undetectable but I won't tell.

--
Wes Groleau

* * There ain't no right wing,
* * there ain't no left wing.
* * There's only you and me and we just disagree.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *(apologies to Jim Krueger)

And you can be sure the fuel/air mix is right for an explosiong just
how? Too little feul or too much in an enclosed space and no
explosion. That is the problem.

Harry K

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:
stuff snipped

While there's a whole lot of circumstantial evidence here, it's going to
be
very hard to prove arson beyond a reasonable doubt short of tool marks
and
fingerprints on the tools that made those marks.

Ve haf vays of mecking the scene talk (grin). Computer trails to
websites about the workings of furnaces and/or furnace explosions past.
If there was a timer or ignition device for the purposes of alibi
establishment (or even just a lack of death wish on the part of the
person setting up the blast) that can be traced back. There are many
others. These guys aren't rocket scientists, so they likely left some
kind of trail. The main problem will probably be finding it in the
destruction.

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem. I think you'll recall my post a while back
about how all the handbooks of arson investigation, particularly regarding
various accelerants, are being rewritten because many were based on
anecdote, not science. The most damning was the discovery that what
investigators had previously classified as accelerant trails on the floor
were actually a peculiar distillation effect of the hot gas from melted
plastic furnishing condensing when they met the cooler floor surface. They
discovered this after one of the many test fires they set at the nearby Fire
Institute at UMd.
Which is breathtakingly beside the point in this case because of
(1) as you yourself noted the science is better and (2) we are talking
about an explosion where the plastics melting is not a factor.


These cases are hard to prove (beyond appeal) because it's rare they can
find a witness or a CCTV recording showing the defendant setting the fire.
After a decade of CSI watching, jurors come to expect evidence that exists
only on TV shows. No witnesses, to a good lawyer, is almost all the
reasonable doubt you need. As you noted, when the crime scene is blown all
to hell and evidence has not been collected with the same care as it would
in a typical murder crime scene, you've got another evidentiary hill to
climb.

This was treated as crime scene from the get go.


These people were out of town, apparently, when it happened. Making it even
harder for a jury to convict unless a timer device with a direct connection
to the defendant is found. Plenty of people I've seen post on Usenet
wouldn't hesitate to "Ben Quick" one of their neighbor once they realized
they weren't home. As other posters have noted, some of those evil people
have immolated themselves along with their target. As my WWII vet editor
told me: "Never underestimate stupidity." If in doubt, see the thread where
two of our regulars are arguing who is more stupid. (-:
Harder but not impossible. Actually some sort of timer or other
ignition device was probably viewed as a requirement from the getgo.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Per Robert Green:
Pete, you dang sumnobitch, you stole my fire! (-:

I wasn't trying to come off as knowing anything.

But that Wikipedia account seemed to support the contention that
arson investigation was pretty bad in the past and has moved more
into the realm of science today.

And Rick Perry looked pretty mean in that article.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 11-22-2012 11:51, Harry K wrote:
And you can be sure the fuel/air mix is right for an explosiong just
how? Too little feul or too much in an enclosed space and no
explosion. That is the problem.

If the space is enclosed, it's not hard to figure out the timing.

--
Wes Groleau

A pessimist says the glass is half empty.
An optimist says the glass is half full.
An engineer says somebody made the glass
twice as big as it needed to be.

In article ,
wrote:


One PSI of pressure from a mediocre explosion ends up being 230,000
pounds of uplift on the ceiling of a 1600 sq/ft house.

100 16d "toe nails" in 25 trusses is not going to hold down an uplift
close to a quarter million pounds. The 5000 pounds or so of roof is
insignificant to that much uplift..

And he doesn't even need to do that much. Have the blow out screw with
the wood frame of the house and even moving it a few inches is probably
enough in most cases to total out the house. People get fixated on the
big outcome and think THAT is what the plan was. It was probably thought
the boom was going to be much less.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:11:59 GMT, (Arthur
Shapiro) wrote:

In article , Kurt Ullman wrote:

The redflag to me is boarding the cat. Does anyone board a cat for
three days?

I'd board my cats if it were even one night. To leave them alone for three
days would be totally irresponsible, bordering on animal cruelty.

Utter nonsense.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:26:36 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


chaniarts wrote:

On 11/21/2012 10:11 AM, Arthur Shapiro wrote:
In article , Kurt Ullman wrote:

The redflag to me is boarding the cat. Does anyone board a cat for
three days?

I'd board my cats if it were even one night. To leave them alone for three
days would be totally irresponsible, bordering on animal cruelty.

Art


your cats probably won't even deign to notice that you're not there for
a week. given a bowl of food and water, and a litter box, a normal cat
won't care if someone is there until the food bowl is empty.

My cat certainly notices when I'm gone, but does just fine for a long
weekend. When I return she has kept track of how many days of attention
and treats are owed.

Bingo! We had one that would sit with it's face in the corner and
pout, while the other soaked up all the attention.

It is sure sounding like the explosion was the work of the ex-wife
and/or boyfriend.

Did hear it all the way down here. ;-)

Yes, the boarding of the cat was what piqued my interest.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:54:41 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Robert Green:
Pete, you dang sumnobitch, you stole my fire! (-:

I wasn't trying to come off as knowing anything.

But that Wikipedia account seemed to support the contention that
arson investigation was pretty bad in the past and has moved more
into the realm of science today.

And Rick Perry looked pretty mean in that article.

This case has tangled me up! A lot to ponder given arguments for both
sides. . I'm a proponent of the death penalty.

Go. Perry should have issued a Stay of Execution until a new hearing
could be held.

I worked in penology for 25 years. State, Federal and those with hard
headedness - somebody screwed the pooch. I swear....

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:11:59 GMT, (Arthur
Shapiro) wrote:

I'd board my cats if it were even one night. To leave them alone for three
days would be totally irresponsible, bordering on animal cruelty.

Art

You pussy. You cannot trust your cats to survive?

Malarkey!! At one time I had three feral cats. Rescued from prisons.
Keri (Key-Rye) came from a garbage dumpster. Doc said I saved her
life.

How about I lock you in a cage, back behind the-down-yonder. I could
feed you swill.

Darby is still with us.

Want to see my hound dog?

Hungry cats never die in a tree.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:07:35 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:
stuff snipped

While there's a whole lot of circumstantial evidence here, it's going to
be
very hard to prove arson beyond a reasonable doubt short of tool marks
and
fingerprints on the tools that made those marks.

Ve haf vays of mecking the scene talk (grin). Computer trails to
websites about the workings of furnaces and/or furnace explosions past.
If there was a timer or ignition device for the purposes of alibi
establishment (or even just a lack of death wish on the part of the
person setting up the blast) that can be traced back. There are many
others. These guys aren't rocket scientists, so they likely left some
kind of trail. The main problem will probably be finding it in the
destruction.

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem. I think you'll recall my post a while back
about how all the handbooks of arson investigation, particularly regarding
various accelerants, are being rewritten because many were based on
anecdote, not science. The most damning was the discovery that what
investigators had previously classified as accelerant trails on the floor
were actually a peculiar distillation effect of the hot gas from melted
plastic furnishing condensing when they met the cooler floor surface. They
discovered this after one of the many test fires they set at the nearby Fire
Institute at UMd.
Which is breathtakingly beside the point in this case because of
(1) as you yourself noted the science is better and (2) we are talking
about an explosion where the plastics melting is not a factor.


These cases are hard to prove (beyond appeal) because it's rare they can
find a witness or a CCTV recording showing the defendant setting the fire.
After a decade of CSI watching, jurors come to expect evidence that exists
only on TV shows. No witnesses, to a good lawyer, is almost all the
reasonable doubt you need. As you noted, when the crime scene is blown all
to hell and evidence has not been collected with the same care as it would
in a typical murder crime scene, you've got another evidentiary hill to
climb.

This was treated as crime scene from the get go.


These people were out of town, apparently, when it happened. Making it even
harder for a jury to convict unless a timer device with a direct connection
to the defendant is found. Plenty of people I've seen post on Usenet
wouldn't hesitate to "Ben Quick" one of their neighbor once they realized
they weren't home. As other posters have noted, some of those evil people
have immolated themselves along with their target. As my WWII vet editor
told me: "Never underestimate stupidity." If in doubt, see the thread where
two of our regulars are arguing who is more stupid. (-:
Harder but not impossible. Actually some sort of timer or other
ignition device was probably viewed as a requirement from the getgo.
How many timers exist in the average house that could be hijacked to
time the explosion? Timers that have a legitimate reason to be in the
house. Lots of them - and VERY hard to prove after an explosion and
fire what they were used for.

In article ,
wrote:

Harder but not impossible. Actually some sort of timer or other
ignition device was probably viewed as a requirement from the getgo.
How many timers exist in the average house that could be hijacked to
time the explosion? Timers that have a legitimate reason to be in the
house. Lots of them - and VERY hard to prove after an explosion and
fire what they were used for.

But how many would produce the needed spark on their own? You can also
ask why they were in the place where you found them? That can be a tip.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:07:35 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

-snip-
Harder but not impossible. Actually some sort of timer or other
ignition device was probably viewed as a requirement from the getgo.
How many timers exist in the average house that could be hijacked to
time the explosion? Timers that have a legitimate reason to be in the
house. Lots of them - and VERY hard to prove after an explosion and
fire what they were used for.

I'd use my handy gas water heater.

Jim

You have timer on your water heater? neat!

Set exdplosion for 3:30 AM?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...

How many timers exist in the average house that could be hijacked to
time the explosion? Timers that have a legitimate reason to be in the
house. Lots of them - and VERY hard to prove after an explosion and
fire what they were used for.

I'd use my handy gas water heater.

Jim

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:07:35 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

-snip-
Harder but not impossible. Actually some sort of timer or other
ignition device was probably viewed as a requirement from the getgo.
How many timers exist in the average house that could be hijacked to
time the explosion? Timers that have a legitimate reason to be in the
house. Lots of them - and VERY hard to prove after an explosion and
fire what they were used for.

I'd use my handy gas water heater.

Jim

Given the mild weather in Indy on that day, I would probably use the
thermostat. I set it for something that may be higher than usual, but
not unduly high. . It would have taken a while after the sun went down
for the house to get cold enough to kick off the furnace and ignite the
gas. The seat would be near the furnace and it would have been written
off as a leak around the furnace.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Nov 23, 8:49*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*Jim Elbrecht wrote:





wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:07:35 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

-snip-
* * Harder but not impossible. Actually some sort of timer or other
ignition device was probably viewed as a requirement from the getgo.
*How many timers exist in the average house that could be hijacked to
time the explosion? Timers that have a legitimate reason to be in the
house. Lots of them - and VERY hard to prove after an explosion and
fire what they were used for.

I'd use my handy gas water heater.

Jim

Given the mild weather in Indy on that day, I would probably use the
thermostat. I set it for something that may be higher than usual, but
not unduly high. . It would have taken a while after the sun went down
for the house to get cold enough to kick off the furnace and ignite the
gas. The seat would be near the furnace and it would have been written
off as a leak around the furnace.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It's questionable if the new high efficiency furnaces would
even cause an explosion. The burner section in many of
them is sealed and draws in combustion air from outside.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:46:06 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Harder but not impossible. Actually some sort of timer or other
ignition device was probably viewed as a requirement from the getgo.
How many timers exist in the average house that could be hijacked to
time the explosion? Timers that have a legitimate reason to be in the
house. Lots of them - and VERY hard to prove after an explosion and
fire what they were used for.

But how many would produce the needed spark on their own? You can also
ask why they were in the place where you found them? That can be a tip.


Hint. A de-glassed light bulb makes a pretty good ignitor After a
blast, who can tell if the bulb was broken before or by the blast???
And the lamp may have been connected to that same timer for 15 years
previously - a totally legitimate application. The folks are not home
- the light is on a timer.

What super CSI is going to figure that one out????

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:31:11 -0500, wrote:

But how many would produce the needed spark on their own? You can also
ask why they were in the place where you found them? That can be a tip.


Hint. A de-glassed light bulb makes a pretty good ignitor After a
blast, who can tell if the bulb was broken before or by the blast???
And the lamp may have been connected to that same timer for 15 years
previously - a totally legitimate application. The folks are not home
- the light is on a timer.

What super CSI is going to figure that one out????

Relatively easy with today's science. Look for the missing evidence.

Crooks are dumb.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 13:40:00 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:31:11 -0500, wrote:

But how many would produce the needed spark on their own? You can also
ask why they were in the place where you found them? That can be a tip.


Hint. A de-glassed light bulb makes a pretty good ignitor After a
blast, who can tell if the bulb was broken before or by the blast???
And the lamp may have been connected to that same timer for 15 years
previously - a totally legitimate application. The folks are not home
- the light is on a timer.

What super CSI is going to figure that one out????

Relatively easy with today's science. Look for the missing evidence.

Crooks are dumb.
Explain the missing evidence. And today's science is proving a lot
of what "the law" "KNEW" is just not so.

Oren wrote:

This case has tangled me up! A lot to ponder given arguments for both
sides. . I'm a proponent of the death penalty.

Go. Perry should have issued a Stay of Execution until a new hearing
could be held.

I worked in penology for 25 years. State, Federal and those with hard
headedness - somebody screwed the pooch. I swear....

The ability of the Governor of Texas to interfere in an execution is
severely restricted. On his own motion, he can issue ONE stay for, I
believe, thirty days. Anything else, up to and including remission of
sentence, pardon, or additional stays have to be initiated by the state
board of Pardons & Parols. If the board does vote for a stay, the governor
may consent to the stay or decline the recommendation.

Courts, both federal and state, have their own policies, but, by far, more
stays are issued by the courts than the governor's office.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:53:16 -0500, wrote:

Explain the missing evidence.

Say blood is found in the hall, the sink is spotless. Makes me curious
so I find a blood finger print on the back side of the sink handle.

The crook that slashed my co-worker's forehead with a straight razor
got beat. My print discovery got him another 10-20 years up by the
down yonder.

Yes this happened

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:24:46 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:53:16 -0500, wrote:

Explain the missing evidence.

Say blood is found in the hall, the sink is spotless. Makes me curious
so I find a blood finger print on the back side of the sink handle.

The crook that slashed my co-worker's forehead with a straight razor
got beat. My print discovery got him another 10-20 years up by the
down yonder.

Yes this happened
What's that got to do with the price of chicken milk in Omaha??

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:03:45 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:

This case has tangled me up! A lot to ponder given arguments for both
sides. . I'm a proponent of the death penalty.

Go. Perry should have issued a Stay of Execution until a new hearing
could be held.

I worked in penology for 25 years. State, Federal and those with hard
headedness - somebody screwed the pooch. I swear....

The ability of the Governor of Texas to interfere in an execution is
severely restricted. On his own motion, he can issue ONE stay for, I
believe, thirty days. Anything else, up to and including remission of
sentence, pardon, or additional stays have to be initiated by the state
board of Pardons & Parols. If the board does vote for a stay, the governor
may consent to the stay or decline the recommendation.

Courts, both federal and state, have their own policies, but, by far, more
stays are issued by the courts than the governor's office.


I have no problem with any governor administering the law as seen fit.

I do think those condemned should have a last meal of Chick-fil-A.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:36:56 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:03:45 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:

This case has tangled me up! A lot to ponder given arguments for both
sides. . I'm a proponent of the death penalty.

Go. Perry should have issued a Stay of Execution until a new hearing
could be held.

I worked in penology for 25 years. State, Federal and those with hard
headedness - somebody screwed the pooch. I swear....

The ability of the Governor of Texas to interfere in an execution is
severely restricted. On his own motion, he can issue ONE stay for, I
believe, thirty days. Anything else, up to and including remission of
sentence, pardon, or additional stays have to be initiated by the state
board of Pardons & Parols. If the board does vote for a stay, the governor
may consent to the stay or decline the recommendation.

Courts, both federal and state, have their own policies, but, by far, more
stays are issued by the courts than the governor's office.


I have no problem with any governor administering the law as seen fit.

I do think those condemned should have a last meal of Chick-fil-A.

Only on Sunday.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 21:34:15 -0500, wrote:

What's that got to do with the price of chicken milk in Omaha??

Are we talking the price of gold? Chicken lips are far more expensive.
Check it out.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

stuff snipped

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem. I think you'll recall my post a while
back
about how all the handbooks of arson investigation, particularly
regarding
various accelerants, are being rewritten because many were based on
anecdote, not science. The most damning was the discovery that what
investigators had previously classified as accelerant trails on the
floor
were actually a peculiar distillation effect of the hot gas from melted
plastic furnishing condensing when they met the cooler floor surface.
They
discovered this after one of the many test fires they set at the nearby
Fire
Institute at UMd.

Which is breathtakingly beside the point in this case because of

"Breathtaking?" Either you are easily impressed or you watch too many shows
on Lifetime. Please don't start to "giggle" like a geisha next. (-:

(1) as you yourself noted the science is better and (2) we are talking
about an explosion where the plastics melting is not a factor.

The comment was meant to illustrate that accident investigation theory is
undergoing a profound change and that principles that had been accepted for
decades are being cast aside. If there was any sort of fire, plastic
melting could be a factor depending on what kind of ignition system was
used.

If you followed the investigation of the San Bruno blast of the 30" high
pressure main, you'd know that the forensics of gas explosions is undergoing
change as well. It took quite some for experts to discover the possible
causes of the failure and ongoing civil litigation reveals there's still
doubt about whether it was a failed weld or corrosion (caused by impurities
and condensation that pooled in an improperly sloped section of the pipe).
As always, the potentially negligent parties deny any role in the explosion.

in a filing in San Mateo County Superior Court last Tuesday in response
to more than 100 lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in damages, PG&E's
lawyers took a more combative stance. The company said it should not be held
liable for the disaster because "unforeseeable, intervening and/or
superseding acts of persons or entities" other than PG&E caused the blast.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...st-2355029.php

Civil litigation concerning these sorts of disasters serves to illustrate
the rather wide range of opinion that accident investigators have because
multiple litigants all have their own expert witnesses. In a criminal case,
there's usually the state v. the defendant. In a big explosion, their may
be 5 to 10 defendants and their experts will have slightly (or wildly)
different theories as to the cause of the explosion.

These cases are hard to prove (beyond appeal) because it's rare they can
find a witness or a CCTV recording showing the defendant setting the
fire.
After a decade of CSI watching, jurors come to expect evidence that
exists
only on TV shows. No witnesses, to a good lawyer, is almost all the
reasonable doubt you need. As you noted, when the crime scene is blown
all
to hell and evidence has not been collected with the same care as it
would
in a typical murder crime scene, you've got another evidentiary hill to
climb.

This was treated as crime scene from the get go.

You were there? (-: In my experience the larger the crime scene, the
harder it is to control. Whenever fire and rescue are involved searching
the scene for possible survivors, a good attorney can cast doubt on any
evidence found perhaps days later. Look at the Travon Martin shooting. Not
a very well-secured crime scene and that's become a big issue in that case.

Accidental contamination of the crime scene is sadly the rule, not the
exception. At least from what I've seen. Neighbors, EMT's, lookie-lous,
etc. Remember, I'm talking about *good* lawyers. The odds are if this was
an arson-for-profit crime the defendants don't have any money to pay a real
attorney. Most likely they'll get a public defender with no budget to rebut
the state's expert witnesses.

These people were out of town, apparently, when it happened. Making it
even
harder for a jury to convict unless a timer device with a direct
connection
to the defendant is found. Plenty of people I've seen post on Usenet
wouldn't hesitate to "Ben Quick" one of their neighbor once they
realized
they weren't home. As other posters have noted, some of those evil
people
have immolated themselves along with their target. As my WWII vet
editor
told me: "Never underestimate stupidity." If in doubt, see the thread
where
two of our regulars are arguing who is more stupid. (-:

Harder but not impossible. Actually some sort of timer or other
ignition device was probably viewed as a requirement from the getgo.

Arsonists are inventive. In Boston, investigators were stumped for quite
some time by a professional arsonist who used gasoline soaked rats in a cage
that he lit on fire as he released them into a building he wanted to burn.
Very, very little in the way of forensics because almost all abandoned
buildings harbor rats and there was no mechanical igniter. The gasoline
used was not enough per rat to trigger the hydrocarbon "sniffers" used by
arson investigators.

The case broke only because a cop saw a flaming rat running across the
street in front of his patrol car just *before* a building erupted into
flame and saw the arsonist's van peel out. Usually the rats would run into
the building looking for hole or some sort of cover, but this rat ran out of
the building instead. Of course, he was a professional (the arsonist, not
the rat!). The Indiana people are likely amateurs who often fold under
interrogation. These are the kinds of cases where the DAs really, REALLY
want a confession because of the evidentiary problems that arson cases often
present.

--
Bobby G.

Oren wrote:

I have no problem with any governor administering the law as seen fit.

I do think those condemned should have a last meal of Chick-fil-A.

Texas recently did away with the "last meal" tradition. Formerly, a
condemned prisoner could request anything for his last meal, with some
exceptions such as alcohol or cigarettes, whose cost to the prison system
did not exceed fifty dollars.

Now, the prisoner gets, for his last meal, the same thing as everybody else
in the place.

Considering the number of executions that take place in Texas, fifty bucks
per adds up to a nifty sum pretty quickly.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:12:23 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:

I have no problem with any governor administering the law as seen fit.

I do think those condemned should have a last meal of Chick-fil-A.

Texas recently did away with the "last meal" tradition. Formerly, a
condemned prisoner could request anything for his last meal, with some
exceptions such as alcohol or cigarettes, whose cost to the prison system
did not exceed fifty dollars.

Now, the prisoner gets, for his last meal, the same thing as everybody else
in the place.

Considering the number of executions that take place in Texas, fifty bucks
per adds up to a nifty sum pretty quickly.


I read most all about it. The inmate trustee that had cooked last
meals for a long time was suddenly out a prison job. Make him swing a
mop instead.

More money saved.

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:12:23 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:

I have no problem with any governor administering the law as seen
fit.

I do think those condemned should have a last meal of Chick-fil-A.

Texas recently did away with the "last meal" tradition. Formerly, a
condemned prisoner could request anything for his last meal, with
some exceptions such as alcohol or cigarettes, whose cost to the
prison system did not exceed fifty dollars.

Now, the prisoner gets, for his last meal, the same thing as
everybody else in the place.

Considering the number of executions that take place in Texas, fifty
bucks per adds up to a nifty sum pretty quickly.


I read most all about it. The inmate trustee that had cooked last
meals for a long time was suddenly out a prison job. Make him swing a
mop instead.

More money saved.

I considered constructing a web site:

thelastmeal.org.

It's purpose would be to solicit donations to provide this last meal of
virtually anything the condemned wanted*. I'd have to get the state's prison
officials on board, but I don't see any real problem with that. In the first
place, they'd save a little money, but more importantly, they'd get
atta-boys for being the compassionate public servants we all know deep-down
they are.

Those who contribute would bask in the certain knowledge they are helping
the soul of an unfortunate transition from worldly pain into the loving arms
of baby Jesus (with suitable substitutions for Muslims, Jews, and
vegetarians).

Of course there would probably be significant expenses involved:
administration, supervision, correspondence, etc., that would accrue to
thelastmeal.org's clerical staff (me), but I wouldn't take more than half
the salary of the United Way's CEO.

---------
* Alternatively, the inmate could choose from a comprehensive menu provided
by thelastmeal.org

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Robert Green:
Pete, you dang sumnobitch, you stole my fire! (-:

I wasn't trying to come off as knowing anything.

Give yourself some creadit. You heard about the case. That's more than a
lot of people know.

But that Wikipedia account seemed to support the contention that
arson investigation was pretty bad in the past and has moved more
into the realm of science today.

I would say "is moving more into the realm of science" because there's
plenty of just awful accident reconstruction out there, whether fire,
explosion or collision. The advent of easy-to-use simulation programs make
it very easy for someone who's not really an experienced professional to
make a presentation that impresses the hell out of a jury, even if it's a
total fabrication.

I once had the pleasure of watching a crusty old one-armed judge from North
Carolina eject an alleged forensic expert. The expert had never been to the
site and only had a pack of drugstore color prints taken by an insurance
investigator to work from.

It will take a while for the new methodologies to "ripple" through the
profession. Sometimes it takes a generation for the old guys to retire and
new guys to come up trained in the modern way of doing things. When DNA
first became prevalent, evidence techs used to saturate a crime scene with
Luminol to make blood spatter appear under UV light. It also contaminated
the living hell out of the DNA, rendering it useless for matching purposes.

It has taken a while for investigators to understand how to preserve and
collect DNA. I was surprised to learn that as of the OJ case, some big-city
homicide detectives still didn't get it right.

And Rick Perry looked pretty mean in that article.

Rick will make a wonderful President of the Republic of Texas when they
secede from the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Secession_Movement

I thought he was the most electable of the field and was surprised to see
him knocked out of the box so early. So he forgot stuff and froze - running
a state as large as Texas seems to me to be good OJT for a would-be POTUS.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 13:40:00 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:31:11 -0500, wrote:

But how many would produce the needed spark on their own? You can also
ask why they were in the place where you found them? That can be a tip.


Hint. A de-glassed light bulb makes a pretty good ignitor After a
blast, who can tell if the bulb was broken before or by the blast???
And the lamp may have been connected to that same timer for 15 years
previously - a totally legitimate application. The folks are not home
- the light is on a timer.

What super CSI is going to figure that one out????

Relatively easy with today's science. Look for the missing evidence.

Crooks are dumb.
Explain the missing evidence. And today's science is proving a lot
of what "the law" "KNEW" is just not so.

Accident reconstruction is more art than science in my experience. Lots of
people think the debris leaves an unequivocal trail of clues that always
points to the right culprit. Not so. Anyone recall the story of the
California fire investigator/author/arsonist John Orr?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leonard_Orr

His modus operandi was to set fires using an incendiary timing-device,
usually comprising a lit cigarette, three matches wrapped in ruled yellow
writing paper and secured by a rubber band, in stores while they were open
and populated. He would set small fires often in the grassy hills, in order
to draw firefighters, leaving fires set in more congested areas
unattended.

--
Bobby G.