Forensics in Flames: Your Burning Questions Answered

This is part of a series of blog posts for the STEM Story Project.

What if you could commit a crime and destroy all the evidence? With fire, you can. Michael May’s STEM Story Project piece “Forensics in Flames” answers our burning questions about how this is possible.

Over the past 20 years, there has been a revolution in the science of arson investigations. Many clues that scientists once looked to in order to determine that a fire was not accidental have been proven false.

Reporter Michael May looks closely at two deadly fires to explore the cutting edge of fire science. He shows us that a new understanding of a phenomenon called “flashover” has disproved many old assumptions. What’s more–clues left in victims’ blood can help determine how a fire started and spread.

We asked Michael some of our burning questions about how the piece came together. Here’s what he had to say:

“My favorite part about making this piece was being able to try new approaches to storytelling and sound design. Since there were no witnesses to the deadly Graf fire the story looks at—and since the various narratives of what happened that day was based solely on forensic science—it gave me the freedom to use reenactments to play out various scenarios. My other favorite part was working with some of my favorite collaborators: Julia Barton, who edited the piece; Kaitlin Prest, who composed the music and sound design, and Dave Mann, who has been reporting on arson science for years.

“My least favorite part was being unable to interview Ed Graf, who was convicted of arson based on flawed science. He’s sitting in county jail and the sheriff refused me access.

“I was completely shocked to learn that a fire lit by a child could engulf an entire house in a matter of minutes. And that a fire in a cabinet or under a table could produce enough carbon monoxide to kill someone, even if they didn’t feel the heat.

“I was also surprised to find how sympathetic I was to the prosecution’s narrative while reading the trial transcript—even though I ultimately concluded they’d sent an innocent man to prison. It just goes to show that once prosecutors have decided someone is guilty, they can find plenty of circumstantial and forensic evidence to show how a suspect, even a mild-mannered banker, had a motive to do an unthinkable crime.”

Michael’s story is one that will leave your ears burning. Take a listen and tell us what you think.