Kendall Philpot Affidavit – Key Points (Eden Fire Case)

Page 1

Case background: On April 5, 2015, Aunt Mae Alcott’s Emerson Hall (Aunt Mae) burned in Eden, SC. Fire determined to be deliberate and intended to cover a violent robbery-murder. Case involves a local family facing serious criminal allegations.

Kendall Philpot: Insurance investigator, age 60, semi-retired, does contract work. 24-year law enforcement career (1981–2005) in Atlanta as firefighter, instructor, arson/fire investigator, and Chief Investigator.
Credentials: >4{,}800 hours of specialized fire/arson training; >5{,}000 fire scene investigations; >350 live fire test burns; expert in fire cause determination, arson investigation, and forensic analysis.
Background: Was fired from the City of Atlanta on alleged theft charges, which he attributes to retaliation for exposing sloppy investigations; now focuses on preventing wrongful convictions.
Retained by Allsfair Insurance to review evidence in Lois Mae Alcott case; four main opinions:
1) The fire was intentionally set.
2) The trace evidence of a petroleum-based liquid consistent with an accelerant found is inconclusive.
3) The start time of the fire is indeterminate.
4) The investigation was inadequate; no reliable means to determine who set the fire.
Fee: 7{,}800.00 for the investigation and report; paid by insurance; not charging to testify.
Overall stance: Agrees with Chief Hawthorne that a container soaked with accelerant ignited by the kitchen stove started the fire and aided its spread, but cannot identify a specific arsonist.

Accelerant context: The accelerant trace on various items suggests a petroleum-based liquid, but the evidence cannot definitively link the accelerant to a single source or individual.
Source ambiguity: Lighter fluid/container traces vs. kitchen debris residues may share a common origin, but no method guarantees a single source; material is a complex mix of thousands of organic compounds.
Link to suspects: Trace evidence from the defendant’s athletic shoes, cash in the living room, and victim’s purse in the burn pile cannot definitively tie to the accelerant.
Possible connection: If the accelerant is the same as lighter fluid, it could be related to activities at Whitman residence earlier on April 5, 2015.
Key limitation: Even if samples share a common source, certainty about who used the accelerant cannot be established.

Forensic challenges: Classic liquid-to-liquid comparisons yield clearer results; debris samples are harder to match with certainty due to numerous potential sources.
Crude oil derivatives: Flammable liquids used to accelerate fires are refined from crude oil and are complex mixtures, complicating source attribution.
Additional evidence caveat: Trace from the defendant’s shoes, cash, and victim’s purse may reflect cross-contamination from handling lighter fluid; cannot determine the original source of accelerant.
Overall implication: Accidental or intentional contamination challenges the ability to attribute accelerant to a specific person.

Forensic comparisons and sample handling: Even if accelerant from the lighter fluid container and debris samples are from the same general source, certainty remains elusive.
Investigation quality concerns: A day elapsed between the fire and homicide investigation; two key facts used to convict (shoeprint match on a sand path and accelerant on shoes and money) are not conclusive by themselves.
Shoeprint limitations: Shoeprints are not unique; only 2 of 6 prints matched; four prints remain unidentified, and sampling of other suspects’ shoes occurred two days later, risking loss of evidence.
Evidence handling issues: Cash in the kitchen cabinet and the victim’s purse were placed in the same evidence bag, raising cross-contamination concerns for accelerant traces on bills; timing and handling muddy the linkage.
Commercially, accelerant traces on money are unreliable due to evaporation and container gas buildup in sealed bags.
Conclusion: The fire was likely intentional, accelerant evidence is inconclusive, start time indeterminate, and the investigation was inadequately conducted.

WITNESS ADDENDUM: After review, no significant additional facts to add; material facts remain as stated.
Closing: Signed affirmation by Kendall Philpot (insurance expert) and notary; reflects his expert opinion given the reviewed exhibits.