BOSTED final 110012255 DECLARATION3

RICHARD J. BOSTED, FIRE SAFETY & CAUSE & ORIGIN CONSULTANT1912 Cottonwood Point Rd. Ft. Collins, Colorado

80524-1745

DECLARATION OF RICHARD BOSTED

I have previously qualified as an arson expert. My area of

expertise include Fire Cause and Origin and I am currently an

associate with the McMullen Company Inc., Davis, California,

which provides Building and Fire Code Analysis and Development

and Fire Cause and Origin Investigation. I was the Fire Chief of

the Riverside and San Carlos California Fire Departments, the

Fire Battalion Chief of the Campbell California Fire Department,

as well as the Fire Captain and Fire Engineer in the Brea and

Compton California Fire Departments. I was the U.S. Department

of State Fire Protection Officer, which entailed analyzing causes

of fires in foreign cities such as Cairo, Egypt, Islamabad and

Lahore, Pakistan, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and Guayakil, Ecuador. I

had a “Top Secret” security clearance and I have taught Fire

Science courses at five Community Colleges in California.I am

attaching a true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae as

Exhibit “1”.

After reviewing reports, interviews, court transcripts, and

more than 150 photos of the fire scene at 930 North Franklin, Ft.

Bragg, California, that occurred on December 10, 1989, some

serious discrepancies have become apparent that are addressed in

this report. The most significant issue is the physical evidence

1

that was clearly noted by all of the investigators during their

inspections, indicating that the fire was caused by an electrical

malfunction. It appears that this direct evidence was later

overlooked in their own reports that were read during the trials

and omitted in the testimony of the same Insurance company

inspectors and police officers and in the declarations of Alcohol

Tobacco & Firearm's agents.

I have reviewed many cases, reports, testimonies, tapes and

other sources for the purpose of preparing a complete and

comprehensive report. I have also made an extra effort to explain

each of my observations with a copy of the report/s that helped

me reach my conclusions. This is necessitated by the numerous

misunderstandings many persons have who review arson cases with

little or no knowledge of what an arson finding really means.

When investigating a fire scene for the cause and origin,

experienced investigators first attempt to eliminate all of the

possible natural causes in the area. Some of these causes may be

an electrical short, careless disposal of smoking material,

natural gas, or propane lines and appliances. Only after the

cause and origin investigator reaches a conclusion that no

natural force caused the fire, can the fire source be called

"incendiary"(caused by the use of a flammable liquid or other

explosive device). The fire scene, witnesses statements and

evidence indications must be analyzed with the strictest scrutiny

2

in order to ascertain an accurate conclusion as to the true cause

of a fire. Since the legal definition of “arson” in 1989, at the

time of this fire in California, was the intentional burning of

the property of another, one must be very careful before reaching

the conclusion that the fire was intentionally caused by someone.

See attached report on investigators duties Exhibit “__”.

There is nothing in any report that I have read that has

disproved the electrical caused theory and it should never have

declared an arson.

Earl Guiseness states that he examined the electrical

circuits near the point of origin. See Guiseness Report attached

hereto as Exhibit “___” p. __. He further stated that the main

circuit system supplied electricity to a plumbing system sump

pump. Exhibit ___,p.___. These circuits have never been

eliminated as the probable cause of this fire. The on and off

switch to this pump recycles on and off by the level of liquids

in the sump. Because the water system valve was on, this sump

pump was set to cycle when needed. This fact tells the

investigator that the short circuit started by a malfunction in

the pump resulted in the fire in question. Guiseness indicated in

his report that the valve was turned on by John Whitney's worker,

Ron Hoyt, on the day of the fire so that he could use the

bathroom.

This fact leads to the conclusion that there was a problem

3

with the circuit and that it was turned off during periods when

the building was not occupied. The Guiseness report indicates

that the valve was left on during the night of the fire. This

meant that the sump pump was set to cycle when needed. These

facts give strong indications to a cause and origin expert that

there was a problem with the circuit. It also tells one that a

short circuit caused by this malfunctioning sump pump caused the

fire in question. The separated wires with the beaded ends

described in the Police, Acting Fire Chief's Lima and the

Guiseness reports demonstrate the necessary heat to start the

fire at the point of origin. See Exhibits ___________. Note in

the attached reports that the only report that gave a "final”

conclusion, was Chief Lima's and he concluded that the fire was

electrical.

Guiseness incorporates these exact findings by Chief Lima in

his same report where he even later contradicts his own findings

and states that "he believes there was an accelerant used in the

mezzanine area even though the ATF Agents did not find any sign

of an accelerant in that area". Exhibit ___, p.__. His report

goes on to state that he believed someone, unknown but definitely

someone with access to the interior of the building started the

fire. His report indicated that Beardslee could not be a suspect

as the fire was started inside and she was indeed "home in bed at

the time of the fire". Exhibit ___, p.___.

4

In fact, in his "investigation", Earl Guisness jumps from

the electrical circuit discussion to a conclusion of an

incendiary fire by a person or persons unknown! This jump is

without evidentiary support. These findings by Guiseness

regarding the fire, contradict his own reports that someone

started the fire by pouring gasoline over the documents in the

loft area and used a match or a lighter to ignite the papers in

the mezzanine area. From there he goes on to statements in his

report that someone poured gasoline through an opening in the top

of the wall. When in fact, the opening in the wall was created by

the fire and thus did not exist before the blaze.

In his testimony at both trials, Guiseness had conflicting

stories: Guiseness testified at the first trial, Exhibit

TR.1,vol 2-pgs. 228-232 @ 228 line 9-10, 16-25 that he observed

the burn patterns after the police unsealed the building and he

went in. (This contradicted his written report that the door was

nailed shut and Officer Pierce's report that Whitney un-nailed

the door when the building was released to him immediately after

the fire and Officer Pierce installed a new padlock that he

replaced after getting the key from Shirley Whitney.) Guiseness

then stated in court that he reached a conclusion the incendiary

fire was set by persons unknown. (His report never reached a

conclusion as it stated it could have started in that manner.)

Guiseness went on to tell the court on this Direct examination by

5

Mr. Levin that the fire started in the southeast exterior wall,

in the corner of the office. (This contradicted his report that

stated it started upstairs in the loft area at the interior

eastern wall. The exterior wall was a direct southern wall. This

false statement went right over everyone's head with its very

clever presentation.) Guiseness was then explaining how the

electrical fire started at the sump pump wire that was plugged

into the pump and was badly charred, arched and then tripped the

one breaker when it ignited, but not the others when he was

interrupted and abruptly told to sit back down by Mr. Levin.

How did Guiseness expect someone to start the fire by this

scenario: (lighting a match to freshly poured gasoline–5 gallons

if Venable is to be believed) and then escape out of the very

small and confined loft area (that was full of paper and

documents), climb down the steep steps (as is indicated by the

photos), while carrying the now empty gasoline can (five gallon

can as indicated by Venable as to the amount poured in the area),

run through the office door, and out of the office (that was

locked from the outside) unharmed? The supposed "arsonist" in

this scenario would have had his body (or the remains of it)

found with the other documents in the loft area that were reduced

to ashes as they burned through the floor and fell to the office

below! Exhibit ___. The second trial testimony on the cause and

origin subject was carefully articulated. At Vol. 5-603,

6

Guiseness declares he reached a conclusion as to the cause and

origin. At 5-604 he again said the fire started in the southeast

area of the office (indicating the outside wall). At 5-605, When

Mr. Levin asked him if he meant that it started in the area

around the "exhaust fan" (which was in the bathroom), Guiseness

says, "No, in the wall, where the circle is, which is between the

office area and the bathroom. The breaker panel that was removed

by the Fire Department had been located in this wall and this is

the area which the fire originated." This statement by Guiseness

that accurately reflected the electrical fire started in the

interior wall was manipulated at line 5-606 line 3-5 when the

Prosecutor, Mr. Levin, said "Is that right, in the office area"

to apparently change the subject from the origin of the fire and

direct the testimony to indicate the fire started in the outside

wall in the office area, when that was not what was being said by

Guiseness. No one corrected Mr. Levin's statement from that

point on. The Guiseness testimony was manipulated to be

interpreted by the court and jury that the fire started in the

outside wall to corroborate Venable's testimony.

These various contradictory conclusions by the same person

are totally without evidentiary support. No one ever questioned

Guiseness about these contractions in any court testimony that I

have seen. The Guiseness report was not prepared until December

19, 1989, nine days after the fire and nine days after the

7

building had been released to the owner and trespassed upon by

anyone who entered and accidentally or intentionally contaminated

the scene. At that point in time, there was no guarantee that any

intruder did not enter the building and intentionally contaminate

the building. The site was never protected by anyone to preserve

any possible evidence of the actual cause of the fire.

Exhibit___.

He never explained away the electrical cause of the fire. It

seems apparent in my reading of the reports that the incendiary

conclusion was made to coincide with the " tip" received by

Bickel that was relayed to Lima that the fire could be arson.

No person can be charged with the crime of arson without the

expert testimony that declares that the fire could not have been

started by any method other than the arson cause determination or

the "intentional act". In my business, it has been called a

"negative corpus" or the negative body of the crime to establish

what caused the fire by eliminating any accidental cause of the

fire. My many years as an expert in the cause and origin's of

fires have led me to the following conclusions as to the cause

and origin of the fire at 930 North Franklin Street, Ft. Bragg,

California.

In this fire investigation, the first person in charge,

Asst. Chief Fred Lima, Fort Bragg Fire Department arrived with

the initial response team. After the initial attack on the fire,

8

Chief Lima moved to the point of origin, where the lowest point

of fire destruction occurred. This point was in the office in

the eastern wall of the office that separates it from the

restroom. Chief Lima had to remove some of the plasterboard to

gain access to the seat of the fire (point of origin). He noted,

as many photos show, that all of the electrical wiring at the

point of origin near the bottom plate, wooden structural member

had most of the insulation burned away. He noted beading at the

ends of these wires where they separated. This beading indicates

that there were high temperatures necessary to melt the copper

wires during a short circuit. The beading also indicates a

strong probability that enough heat was generated to ignite the

combustible material at the point of origin of this fire. This

evidence was significant enough to require the preserving of the

electrical panel box, the beaded wires, 2 electrical PG & E

meters, and the alarm box as indicated in the evidence list and

the fire department photos in his report. See attached evidence

list & report that was dated approved on 1/17/90, 37 days after

the fire, the ”carpet samples and cans as evidence" were taken by

Officer Pierce, and the meters were not removed until 10/26/90,

almost a year later).

Chief Lima proceeded to remove the electrical distribution

panels and meters. In addition, the wires in question near the

point of origin and the two meters on the outside of the

9

warehouse were taken for further examination. Chief Lima

correctly wrote in his report that the cause of the fire "Was

caused by the electrical problems as noted." The conclusion that

Chief Lima properly noted was mutually agreed upon as the cause

by the other fire fighters and police staff as is indicated in

the original reports of Officers Les Pierce, State Fire Marshall

McGill, Earl Guiseness, and others. Exhibit___.

From the point of origin, the fire spread uninhibited in a

mostly vertical direction in the open space of the wall between

the two layers of plasterboard to the top-plate-structural

member. Because uncontrolled fire and heat always rise, the top

plate offered little resistance to the constantly increasing heat

of the fire. Destruction of the top plate structural member

allowed the fire to extend to the paper and cardboard boxes

stored in the mezzanine. Exhibit ___.

Chief Lima found that the wall harboring these super heated

flames was not fire stopped when built. These structural members

(fire stops) did not come by their name accidentally. They are

installed horizontally between the upright wooden studs for

stability and more importantly to stop the upward spread of fires

in walls. The insurance investigator Mr. Guiseness did not

mention the lack of fire stops in his report. Chief Lima

stated at the (1st tr-vol 1-12 lines 7-25) "The fire started in

between the two walls that were lined with sheet rock and a vent

10

pipe coming up the wall. This is where the fire came through from

below and showed the fire travel pointing back down to the first

story".

In this building, if there were fire stops they could have

and most surely would have minimized the effects of this fire. It

is important to consider that the plasterboard attached to both

sides of the studs in the wall did not sustain breakdown or

explosive damage from the ignition or burning of the studs. In

fact, Asst. Chief Lima had to remove the plasterboard (Exhibit

photos ___) to reach the seat of the fire. The office and

contents damage did not come directly from the wall, but from the

burning storage above on the mezzanine. Exhibit ____.

The building was "released to the owner Beardslee and the

Whitney's" the day after the fire as stated in the Police

Officer's Pierce and Sgt. Grant's reports and then on December

27, 1989 the ATF, investigators re-entered the building without

the benefit of a search warrant. The search warrant obtained a

month later, On January 4, 1990 by Agent Gil who improperly

stated that the filing cabinets that were taken immediately after

the fire by the Ft. Bragg Police Department were still remaining

in the warehouse. Exhibit ______. The reports of Chief Lima and

Officer Pierce state that the cabinets were taken and in custody

of the Ft. Bragg Police when the ATF took custody after obtaining

the search warrant. The ATF never took actual physical custody

11

of any of the evidence on the property lists that included three

filing cabinets and 7 burned boxes from the Ft. Bragg Police

Dept. until March 1993, Exhibit_ photos .

Agent Stafford indicated to Ms. Beardslee in his taped

interview that he and Sgt. Grant had removed the filing cabinets

to check for the cause of the fire. Exhibit___Stafford tape

transcript pp.____ . When Ms. Beardslee asked Agent Stafford

"when you took the cabinets, did you take the files or the

Cabinets", Stafford said " The cabinets". When Mrs. Beardslee

and her son Sean, went to the warehouse to observe the damage

with the insurance adjuster Gary Hurn on December 12, 1989, the

door was nailed shut and they were not allowed to enter as is

indicated in Hurn's written report. I have noted these

observations from the written reports to show how contaminated

the site became with all of the parties going in and out of the

building. These included contractors and clean up people to

remove the slightly burned office furniture, debris and ashes

that were on the sidewalk and street after being dragged out

during and after the fire. Evidence photos _____.

It was after December 12, 1989, when the Fort Bragg Fire

Chief Bickell told Asst. Chief Lima that he had a tip that this

fire was Arson and that he would be requesting help from the

State Fire Marshal's Office, that this case took a decided

change. When the number of investigators increased, one from the

12

California State Fire Marshal's Office, three or four from the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, that came several into the

investigation weeks after the fire, and three or more from

Insurance Companies, the owner, the Whitney's, and others, the

possibility of reaching a consensus about the cause and origin

became extremely elusive as is indicated in their written reports

and court statements.

All of the investigators (except for Chief Lima) came into

the fire scene after the building had been "released back to the

owners caretakers, the Whitney's" on the morning of the fire,

(December 10, 1989)as Chief Lima and Officers Pierce stated in

their reports when the fire was properly found to be an

electrical fire.

The carpet on the floor of the office is commonly referred

to as indoor/outdoor synthetic carpet. It is manufactured of

petroleum derivatives so it is natural for decomposition caused

by heat of a fire to result in the production of vapors that

mimic the vapors of flammable liquids. If the carpet were doused

with gasoline as some investigators claim, how could the carpet

and office have not completely burned given the intense heat

generated at this fire scene? From the photos of the office area

only a small amount, perhaps three square feet was actually

destroyed by fire out of 17 by 11 feet of 387 square feet, of

carpet in the office.

13

A laboratory report on this carpet has been referred to

several times in the documentation of this case and has never

been produced for the interested parties. All participants must

examine this type of evidence in this case for validity, and

accuracy.

The "carpet samples, empty Jerry can, and electrical

equipment" was not removed from the warehouse until over a month

after the fire and a month after "possession of the premises was

given back to the Whitney's", as per the property exhibit lists.

This indicates contamination of the "evidence". Pierce in his

report indicates on the bottom of page 3 that ," only one " "Red

five gallon "Jerry" gas can , located 10 feet from the rollup

door with 3 to 4 inches of liquid in it that did not smell like

gasoline but more like kerosine" was seen and he took " a sample

of this liquid as evidence", which was item #6". Note in the

attached evidence list that item #12 was then identified as the

"Jerry can with/ fuel". Does this mean that anyone was expected

to believe that six years later at Ms. Beardslee's first trial

and seven years later at the second trial, this 3-4 inches of

"vaporizable liquid" taken weeks after the fire, was

"preserved"? He and others gave sworn declarations that the

can of liquid, which all at the trial claimed was not used by

Venable in setting the original fire (that was started outside

the building), was in "good condition." Yet, had the can been

14

subject to any heat, the "fuel" would have ignited and the can

would have burst. If the fuel can was present at the location

which Officer Pierce declared in his report and remained there

during the primary fire, the firefighters would "definitely" have

removed it or better yet, the remains of the can that most likely

would have exploded with the heat of an "incendiary" fire that

would ignite the ingredients.

Pierce stated in his declaration read to the jury at the

second trial, that Ms. Beardslee took him to the site of the

disconnected plumbing and described exactly how the fire started

by someone pouring gasoline into the building. This statement

totally contradicts his written report that stated Ms. Beardslee

could not tell him how the fire started. Exhibit____.

The Pierce report at page one shows a signature date of 3 OR

5/13/90 as the date of the report on the bottom of the page and

the number (827) on the right hand bottom of the page, this

number (827) was used in the Gary Hurn insurance reports that I

read to identify the pages in his reports and those of the

insurance company personnel that wrote the internal documents of

the insurance company. This date indicates that either the 3 OR

5/13/90 date was indicating that this report was written four to

six months after the fire by Pierce.

The only report attached to the exhibits was the drawing

with the results of the "sniffer" test. This is not a certified

15

laboratory report. It is even more important since there is no

consensus by the many investigators about where and how the fire

started. I could at this time ask for a copy of this lavatory

report that was never produced, even at the two trials, however

the possibility of it being accurate after 12 years have passed

defies credibility. It is apparent that many of the documents

produced at Mrs. Beardslee's trial were not the duplicates of the

original reports, one could only assume that at this late date,

no report was ever written for the obvious reason that it was not

conclusive as to an accelerants being used in the fire.

Additionally, a mechanical device called a "sniffer" was

used to sample the air adjacent to the point of origin. The

instructions for the use of these devices in all cases caution

the user not to contaminate the probe as this will render

subsequent sampling inaccurate. The sampling in this fire scene

was photographed in at least 15 separate photos and the method

used obviously contaminated the probe in each one. Each time the

probe was sampled according to the report, the tester inserted

the probe underneath the petroleum-based carpet, underneath

melted plastic waste receptacles or debris that fell from the

upper area that was disturbed and then laid back down, or the

probe was resting on top of the carpet. This act contaminated

the probe in each instance with the probe touching a foreign

object. In the Guiseness report, whose report led to the

16

conviction, the probe was used improperly by him. Who really

used the probe, Lima, Pierce, Guiseness or someone else? The

reports conflict on this issue. While the Alcohol Tobacco and

Firearms reports indicate some type of flammable liquid was used,

there is never any reference to gasoline or any particular type

of "gasoline". If a true report were done, it would have

indicated the real chemical analysis of any "liquid" found. For

an accurate determination that gasoline was present, samples of

the concrete floor beneath the carpet would have to be removed

and very carefully tested. This was not done in this fire.

Consequently, it defies credibility to rely on this sampling for

analysis of any type!

Glass panes in windows begin to crack and craze at

temperatures above 1200 degrees Fahrenheit and will melt at

approximately 1700 degrees Fahrenheit. These temperatures are

easily reached in fires where flammable liquid accelerants are

used. If accelerants were used in this fire, the fact that the

glass windows and the glass and aluminum screened door in the

office did not crack or melt cannot be accounted for. I believe

there were no flammable liquid accelerants used in this fire. In

addition, the vehicles parked in the warehouse during the fire

showed signs of soot and debris from the fire, but no cracked or

melted glass and only the outside paint damaged from the smoke

that was later washed off by Debbie Jarstrom. Exhibit _______ .

17

It is my belief that electrical short circuits caused this

fire. Delayed notification was supported as the time, around

midnight, was indicated on the clock and there were no immediate

witnesses to see the smoke. The clock high on the office wall

stopped at 12:17 AM which supports the response time of the Fort

Bragg Fire Dept. and moreover, Asst. Chief Lima. At

approximately 1:00 AM. This indicates that the fire was burning

for at least forty-five minutes before it was discovered.

To summarize, the evidence leads to the conclusion that a

flammable liquid accelerant did not contribute to this fire.

Venable claims to have used 3-5 gallons of gasoline to start the

fire. Since each gallon of gasoline produces more than 700 cubic

feet of combustible, explosive vapors, the damage to this

building in such a scenario would be considerably more than

occurred. With 3500 cubic feet of combustible vapors (four times

the office cubic feet) in the very small, 10x11 foot (110 sq.

feet or 880 cubic feet) of confined office space, that was

crammed with three desks and other furniture, the doors and

windows would have been shattered and blown through the building.

The remains left in the frame would have melted. The office and

furniture would have been destroyed.

The carpet, discussed above, would have had at least 50% or

more than likely it would have complete destruction instead of

the 3 square feet that burned. The plasterboard enclosing the

18

wall between the office and restroom was intact when Chief Lima

began his investigation. This plasterboard had to be removed to

access the seat of the fire (origin). If an accelerant

(flammable liquid) was used, the plasterboard would have been

shredded and blown away on ignition. There would have been a

large explosion in the office and bathroom area that would have

caused extensive damage. Note from the photos that the electric

water heater, the toilet and the shower were left intact, thus no

explosion.

In the many transcripts, that I have reviewed containing

both in court and out of court statements as to how he started

the fire, there were many inconsistencies. In Venable's arrest

tape, he stated that he drilled a three inch hole into the wall

(did he use his fingers or an electric drill) and that he put the

gasoline into the hole while his accomplice waited in the car,

further stating that Glover was not there when " the match was

lit". At the first Grand Jury hearing, the ATF Agents testified

that the fire was started when Venable took the outside plumbing

apart, and used a funnel to pour five gallons of gasoline through

the small opening in the pipe that was sloped downward away from

the point of origin, with the assistance of his accomplice

Glover. He stated that he then waited 30 minutes or so and came

back and stuffed paper into the pipe and lit a match. He stated

that he watched the flames come out of the roof and the

19

horizontal pipe that would have been full of water from the

plumbing. (To pour five gallons of gasoline into such a small

opening is no small task and it would take several hours to

complete such a task, if indeed liquid could be poured into a

horizontal pipe that was sloped downward.)

In the second Grand Jury hearing, it was stated by the ATF

agent that Venable alone poured the gasoline into the same pipe

while his accomplice remained in the car. Venable again stated

that he waited, and then stuck his hand into the pipe and lit the

gasoline with the aid of a match and paper. In the 1995 trial

testimony, Venable stated that he took the plumbing out of the

wall, poured the gasoline into the wall, waited and then put his

hand through the opening with a match to light the gasoline.

In the final 1996 trial, where Ms. Beardslee wass convicted,

Venable's story changed again. This time his friend Glover helped

him pour the gas, they waited 30 minutes for it to soak in and

came back to light the match together by stuffing papers into the

hole. He stated how scared he was when the flames shot out of the

horizontal pipes and holes that he made. None of these stories is

minutely credible for obvious scientific reasons.

Venable also added to his final 1996 court testimony his

statements that: The fire was ignited by him, from the outside by

his removing by hand(by pulling them out of the wall), the

plumbing pipes that serve the restroom. These pipes were intact

20

as seen in photos of the point of origin. Further, gasoline

poured into a pipe or through the opening of the pipe in the wall

cannot be ignited by lighting a newspaper stuffed into the hole

since the necessary mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor would

not be present to support combustion. If one were to insert his

arm through a hole while igniting gasoline, he would not have had

an arm to pull back through the hole upon ignition.

I am incorporating into my report a letter that came via the

internet from a fellow cause and origin specialist that wrote the

bulk of the attached reports. Tony Café has been kind enough to

assist me by helping Ms. Beardslee in obtaining the attached

information. I feel that it is most appropriate to include his

report that was sent to Ms. Beardslee on January 8, 2001, in my

findings at this point:

“Dear Jerri,

I have read the reports and I would like to say the following :

        -  If several gallons of petrol were used to start this fire then the damage would be severe rather than only a few square feet of carpet burnt. The investigator at the scene would note low level and localized burning to the carpet if petrol was used.

An appropriate experiment would be to pour the stated amount of petrol into a room of similar dimensions and furnishings and allow the burn time to be the same as the response of the Fire Brigade in your fire. Then check the damage with that in your fire.

        -  If several gallons of petrol were used, then

21

the first investigators at the scene would definitely smell petrol and would then take samples. The first thing any investigator does at a fire scene is to smell for petrol. The investigator should report the presence or absence of petroleum vapours their initial report or notes.

        -  Sniffers will respond to burnt carpet without petrol being present. This is because some of the components in petrol are also found in some burnt carpets. So the only proof of accelerants is laboratory analysis by Gas Liquid Chromatography.

        -  If petrol was used, then the fire would have to burn through the  plaster wall to reach the wires inside. If there was beading on the wires and the surrounding plaster was not burnt through, then the fire had to have started from the wires. There is no other explanation.

        -   The laboratory analysis is very important and your side should have had access to them.

Again I stress, that if several gallons of petrol were used, then the investigator or firemen would have smelt it at the scene. I have been to dozens of accelerated fires where I can smell it from outside the building. If the fire investigators were removing plaster from a wall, then they would only have been feet or possibly inches from supposedly several gallons of petrol and they should have smelt it.

As an experiment, pour some petrol onto the same carpet which was in the office and then check it every day for odours. You will be surprised how long it stays there, possibly a week or even longer if the carpet is wet and seals in the petrol. Its the same even if the petrol is burnt. The only way such a large amount of petrol can disappear from carpet is for the carpet to burn to powder which would devastate nearly any building.

I conducted a chemistry Master's thesis in accelerant analysis and have sampled and analyzed some 2500 samples taken from fire scenes. In about 90% of positive samples, I can smell the accelerant in the sample. It would seem inexcusable for an investigator

22

to say there was a petrol present aftercalling a fire electrical because he should have smelt the accelerant at the scene.

I can be contacted on 02 9725 6356 which is in Sydney Australia. Our time zone is 11 hours ahead of Greenwich time so don't ring me between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.

Regards

Tony Cafe

C:\Download\beerlady.doc>T.C. Forensic Pty LimitedE-MAIL: [email protected]: www.tcforensic.com.au”

A long time friend of mine asked me to assist in this matter

as a favor to him. He stated that he believed that with my

experience I could help Jerri Beardslee find the true cause of

the fire. I am semi-retired and at a first glance, I was trying

to think of reasons not to put the large amount of time that is

needed to analyze a 10-year-old "arson" case. After looking

briefly at the many documents and photos that were sent to me by

Ms. Beardslee's counsel, I was overwhelmed at the obvious

inconsistencies I immediately saw that were either recklessly or

intentionally ignored by the fire department, police department,

ATF agents and insurance adjusters that testified at the two

trials of Ms. Beardslee. These false and incorrect testimonies

eventually lead to her conviction of "arson" for a fire that was

23

indeed accidental. It became apparent that an expert needed to

tell the truth as to the real cause and origin of the fire.

I have not received any compensation from Ms. Beardslee for

my services. I did this report entirely on my own time and

expense.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

United States that the forgoing is true and correct. Executed on

January ___, 2001.

________________________Signature on file with No. District Ct.RICHARD BOSTED

24