California Fire And Life

INCENDIARY

+

–

+

–

+

– accelerant

Bentley mortgage doors locked alibi pour pattern cig/vodka balloon windows locked points of origin fuel load taxes distance to house

divorce reconcile seen at 4:45 a.m. lied in statement hole in roof pebbled glass red flame contents?

Jack thinks about the chart for a few minutes, then draws a horizontal line across the bottom, subtitles the new section MURDER and starts again.

+

–

+

–

+

– all above plus: no smoke in Lungs carboxyhemo-globin pugilistic cig/vodka alcohol + CO location of body all above plus hatred? all above alibi no witness

Okay, Jack tells himself. Take the arson first. Start with incendiary origin. What are your three strongest points? ("The Rule of Three," Billy says. "Always try to present your evidence in sets of three. It's the way juries like to hear it. It's always a minister, a priest, and a rabbi in the rowboat")

So what are my three strongest points? Well, the positive char samples make bullshit of Bentley's cigarette-in-the-vodka hypothesis. So that would be number one. Number two? The pour pattern – there's no way to reconcile that with an accidental fire. Number three? Multiple points of origin. Again, inconsistent with an accidental fire.

Now, what are the points against?

The counterargument is that certain contents in the room might have burned "hot," leaving an erroneous implication of multiple points of origin. And Bentley's point about the fuel load is correct as far as it goes. There was a lot of stuff in the bedroom, and it's possible that the heavy fuel load burn could explain away the other indicators of an accelerated fire.

It could provide reasonable doubt, anyway.

But not with the positive samples.

With a positive sample, Jack thinks, everything falls together.

Motive.

Dead-solid lock. The three strongest points? The balloon payment, the lack of income, the missed payments. It's an embarrassment of riches – no reverse pun intended – and there'll be no problem proving that Nicky had a motive to torch the house. The arguments against? There really aren't any.

Opportunity.

Three strongest points? Locked doors and windows with no sign of forced entry, Leo the pooch outside, and Derochik's statement having Nicky coming in at 4:45.

And now Nicky has lied. You have him on tape saying he never went out, that the phone call woke him up. And I guess that just fucks you.

Arguments against? No witness to put Nicky on or near the actual fire scene. No snitch to connect him directly to the fire.

Two: Mother Russia's alibi – but Derochik's statement is going to shoot that down.

So, opportunity?

A tougher call, but when you put it together with incendiary origin and motive, it plays.

Move down to the murder, because it's all connected. A jury will never believe the coincidence of a murder with an accidental fire. Conversely, they'll never buy an accidental death with an intentional fire.

We have a combo plate here, Jack thinks.

Strongest points that Pamela Vale was murdered?

One: She was dead in time proximity to an arson.

Two: Her bloodstream showed alcohol and barbiturates, but witnesses will say that she wasn't drinking, and someone else – probably an associate of her husband's – picked up her Valium prescription.

Arguments against?

Primarily, there's the ME's conclusion of death by overdose.

Second is Bentley's call of CO asphyxiation accelerated by acute inebriation. The alcohol reduces the amount of oxygen in the lungs, making CO poisoning rapid and deadly.

It's possible, Jack thinks.

If she was drinking.

And if there was no accelerant.

And if Jack thinks, you hadn't looked into Nicky's eyes and just known that he killed his wife.

And if the arrogant bastard hadn't lied on tape.

Jack goes in to see Goddamn Billy.