Kendall Philpot Case Notes — Fire Investigation Vocabulary

Incident: a fire at Emerson Hall in Eden, South Carolina on the night of April 5, 2015, leading to the death of Lois Mae Alcott (Aunt Mae) and the belief that the fire was set to cover a robbery-murder.
Case posture: a defendant is charged with Aunt Mae's murder; the fire investigation is a background context for the trial.

Name and age: Kendall Philpot; 60 years old.
Current work: semi-retired insurance investigator; contract basis for insurance companies.
Career background: over 24-year law enforcement career (1981–2005); roles included firefighter, Fire Service Principles and Practices Instructor, Fire/Arson Investigator, Chief Investigator for the City of Atlanta; promoted from firefighter to Assistant Training Officer and then to Chief Investigator (1997).
Qualifications: more than 4{,}800 hours of specialized training; investigated over 5{,}000 fire scenes; participated in over 350 live fire test burns/exercises; qualified as an expert in fire cause determination, arson investigation, and forensic analysis in state and federal courts.
Affiliations: IAAI, NFPA, IAFC, GA Insurance Fraud Investigators Association, IAFS, GA State Firefighter's Association, etc.
Personal stance: previously fired under disputed circumstances; now advocates for exposing sloppy investigations and protecting against wrongful convictions (e.g., Devin Emerson).

Retained by Allsfair Insurance Company (insurer of Emerson Homestead) to review evidence and provide expert opinions.
Review scope: examination of all exhibits for trial preparation.
Fee/status: fee for investigation and report 7{,}800.00; paid by insurer; not charging a separate fee to testify.

(1) The fire was intentionally set.
(2) The trace evidence of a petroleum-based liquid consistent with an accelerant collected was inconclusive.
(3) The time the fire started is indeterminate.
(4) The investigation of the fire and the death of the victim was inadequate; no reasonable means to determine who set the fire.
Addendum: Materials reviewed; no significant additions at the time of the addendum.

Accelerant source problems: residue in debris and a lighter-fluid container; no reliable method to prove the debris and container accelerant came from the same source; no other liquid samples tested for comparison.
Scene investigation gaps: Chief Hawthorne did not locate an accelerant source on the night of the fire; later found the lighter-fluid container but did not pursue additional sources.
Source diversity: accelerants are complex mixtures (crude oil derivatives) with thousands of compounds; matching samples across different media is inherently uncertain.
Conclusion risk: even if samples might share a common source, certainty about a single origin is not achievable.

Samples tested: Kitchen surfaces (countertops, walls, ceiling joists, flooring) showed petroleum-based liquid; lighter-fluid container and debris samples could not be definitively linked.
Shoes, cash, and purse: trace evidence from athletic shoes, cash, and victim's purse found in burn pile cannot be definitively traced to the accelerant; strongest commonality is presence of a petroleum-based liquid.
Temporal linkage: accelerant could be connected to the defendant's and Jaylen Whitman’s activities earlier that afternoon, but no definitive source was established.

Shoeprint vs fingerprint: shoeprints are not unique to an individual; fingerprints are unique.
Findings: defendant’s shoes show two matches to shoeprints along the sand path; four unidentified shoeprints could belong to the perpetrator.
Procedural gaps: investigators delayed sampling other potential suspects’ shoes by two days; casts of four unidentified prints disappeared.
Impact: delay and lost evidence hinder definitive attribution of footwear to the crime.

Currency and accelerant traces: accelerant traces found on cash from multiple sources collected in the same bag; cross-contamination likely in collection/storage.
Evaporation/transfer: accelerants evaporate and the gas can accumulate in containers, causing all items in a bag to show traces, making it hard to determine which item had the original accelerant.
Source attribution: it remains uncertain which bills initially carried accelerant traces prior to collection; handling by Whitman and the defendant could account for contamination.

Timeline issue: approximately one day elapsed between the fire and the homicide investigation.
Key pieces of information cited by the Chief: (a) defendant's shoes matched shoeprints along the path; (b) traces of accelerant on the defendant's shoes and cash found in the defendant's residence.
Limitations: shoeprints only account for 2 of 6 prints; additional suspects’ shoes were not tested in a timely manner; evidence circumstantial rather than definitive.

Primary inference: the fire was intentionally set and was likely accelerant-facilitated.
Link to defendant: no definitive scientific linkage tying the accelerant or arson to the defendant; multiple uncertainties and methodological limitations.
Overall assessment: the investigative process was inadequate to establish a definite perpetrator; scientific evidence supports arson but not a specific suspect.

WITNESS ADDENDUM: Reviewed, nothing significant to add.
Certification: signed and sworn before 8:00 a.m. on the day of the High School Mock Trial round; Notary Public: Michala Watson; Commission Expires: 4/3/20.

Fire: April 5, 2015; location: Emerson Hall, Eden, SC.
Principal opinions: arson occurred; accelerant evidence inconclusive; time of ignition indeterminate; investigation inadequate.
Major evidentiary challenges: non-unique shoeprints, potential cross-contamination of accelerant residues, limited comparative sampling, and delays in testing other suspects.
Financials: expert fee 7{,}800.00; no charge to testify.