> " found characteristic burn marks on the ground which told him an accelerant had pooled there." I thought that was one of the debunked myths of forensics. Qu

> " found characteristic burn marks on the ground which told him an accelerant had pooled there." I thought that was one of the debunked myths of forensics. Quoting http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20121006-innocence-project-reviewing-old-texas-arson-cases-to-see-if-forensic-myths-led-to-wrongful-convictions.ece http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20121006-innocence... : > For example, “pour patterns” — discolorations or deep burns once believed to be irrefutable proof that an accelerant had been poured on a floor — were found to be common to accidental fires, too. More at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/forensic-tools-whats-reliable-and-whats-not-so-scientific/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/forensic-tools-wha... : > In fact, as FRONTLINE reported in the 2010 film Death by Fire, many of the supposed telltale signs of arson – the remnants of accelerant pour patterns, for example – can actually be caused by natural phenomena during accidental fires.