Introduction
In May 2012, English couple Mick and Mairead Philpott made the headlines for surviving a fire that killed their six children and destroyed their house in the Allenton area (BBC News, 2013). After publicly claiming to be lucky for surviving the fire, the Philpotts won the sympathy of people who felt sorry for them for losing six of their children and most of their properties. However, after a month of investigation, the Philpotts were accused of committing arson and murder, and by 2013, they were convicted of manslaughter for deliberately starting a fire that killed all six of their children. What were the events that led to the conviction of the Philpotts? What were the evidences that pointed to their guilt? How did the experts come up with the judgment that the Philpotts were the ones behind the fire that killed their children? This paper will tackle the investigative process involved in the case of the Philpotts and how the use of forensic chemistry led to the rightful conviction of the real perpetrators of the crime.
The Origin and Cause of Fire
According to the investigation of the case, the fire that killed the six children of Mick and Mairead Philpott was deliberately started. Analysis showed that petrol was used to deliberately start and accelerate a fire from the hallway, below the letterbox (BBC News, 2013; Gerry, 2013). Pictures below show the intensity of the fire that started from within the Philpotts’ house and not outside in contrast to the couple’s initial statement. Analysis of the fire showed that it started from the hallways of the house spreading rapidly to burn the entire area.
What Happened: Mick and Mairead Philpott vs. Evidences
According to their version of the story, Mick and Mairead Philpott put their six children: Duwayne, 13; Jade, 10; John, 9; Jack, 8; Jesse, 6; and Jayden, 5 to bed on the evening of 10 May 2012 (Crime & Investigation, 2015). The couple then decided to call their friend Paul Moseley and have drinks together while staying in the conservatory room downstairs (BBC News, 2013; Crime & Investigation, 2015). The couple and their friend then fell asleep in the conservatory room (BBC News, 2013; Crime & Investigation, 2015). Past three o’clock in the morning of 11 May 2012, the couple woke up to a fire alarm and found that their house was on fire with all of their six children still inside (BBC News, 2013). Upon discovering the fire that was rapidly engulfing their properties with all their children, Mairead took the initiative to call the police and ask for assistance, frantically pleading for help as she claimed her children were trapped in their burning home (BBC News, 2013). Making the public believe that they too were victims of the fire and were just fortunate to escape it, the Philpotts successfully won the sympathy of the public until investigations pointed to the truth that twisted their entire story.
Investigations led to the finding of evidences that included an empty can of petrol and a glove near the Victory Road (BBC News, 2013). Analysis of the couple’s clothes during the time the fire took place also showed signs of contact with the same petrol used in the fire (BBC News, 2013; Gerry, 2013). The Philpotts and Moseley denied coming into contact with the petrol and claimed that the traces of petrol seen in the clothes they wore on the night of the fire were due to poor hygiene and the fact that the clothes were old and not cleaned properly (Gerry, 2013). However, scientific evidence showed that the amount of petrol seen on the clothes was not diminutive and it was still fresh (Gerry, 2013). Also, the fact that Mairead called 999 at 3:46 am when nobody else was around the scene of fire questions the credibility of her statement that she and her husband with their friend Moseley woke up from a fire alarm that would most likely wake other people in their neighborhood as well (Brown, 2013). Apart from this finding, records of the conservation between Mick and Mairead Philpott pointed to the truth that they were indeed involved in the act of setting their house on fire. The motive of seeking revenge against Mick Philpott’s former mistress Lisa Willis was found to be the main reason why Mick and Mairead with the help of their friend Paul would end up burning their house with all their six children inside (Brown, 2013). According to this finding, Mick and Mairead wanted to have custody of Lisa’s children with Mick and so they planned to burn their house down and implicate Willis thereafter, resulting in her losing rights to keep her children (Brown, 2013). It was an attempt to get back at Willis for leaving Mick after she has had enough of the domestic setup she had with the man and his wife (Brown, 2013).
Analysis of the Evidence: How the Experts Determined the Crime
Chemical analysis of the evidences gathered from the crime scene was the main process accomplished by experts which led them to a more plausible explanation for what transpired in the home of Philpotts (Gerry, 2013). Analysis of the evidences showed that petrol was used and deliberately spread to create a fire that would damage their properties. While there are no public accounts of how the investigative experts came up with the conclusion that the Philpotts were the perpetrators of the fire, standard procedure would most likely include the use of detection dogs or hydrocarbon sniffers to determine if accelerants were used in cases where arson is suspected (The Forensics Library, no date). Gas chromatography would also be most likely used as it is the most common method employed to detect the source of fire from the debris (The Forensics Library, no date). Gas chromatography allows volatile substances, in the form of chromatograms, to be separated from bulk or trace samples (The Forensics Library, no date). The mixtures comprising the separated volatile substance may be identified after it is separated from the debris (The Forensics Library, no date). The substance then may be compared with other substances to see if it matches evidences that would point to the origin of the fire (The Forensics Library, no date). In the case of the Philpotts, the fact that the petrol used in the fire was linked to the amount of petrol seen on the clothes worn by the suspects at the time of fire and the amount of petrol that was still present in the container suggests that experts may have employed the method of gas chromatography to come up with their conclusion (The Forensics Library, no date).
Other Methods that Could Be Applied to the Case
The use of headspace analysis or the method that employs activated charcoal or other similar absorbent material to gather the volatile substance from the debris may also be used to isolate the cause of fire (The Forensics Library, no date). Once isolated, the volatile substance may be compared to suspected samples and if they match, experts may proceed to evidenced conclusions.
Sampling and Handling of Samples
Given the case, I suppose that the samples taken by experts include the empty can of petrol and the glove that came with it when it was found near the crime scene. All the pieces of clothes worn by the suspects should also be taken to analyse if it contain any substances that may implicate the persons wearing them to the crime. Debris from the where the fire took place should also be collected and analysed to see how the fire spread and what could be the most likely agent. The burnt floor or walls and other pieces of furniture may be scratched to produce a small piece of sample for analysis. However, in the event wherein the surfaces from which the samples must be obtained are too charred for samples to be analysed properly, experts may take the samples from the grooves, for instance of the floor, or from the soil below the floorboard (The Forensics Library, no date).
Samples taken from the scene and from the people involved should be placed in airtight containers to avoid contamination or dangers leading to combustion since the said samples may have become volatile due to coming in contact with a volatile substance (The Forensics Library, no date). Metal containers, glass jars, or impermeable plastic bags may all be used for storage of samples (The Forensics Library, no date). Samples gathered should be stored separate from one another according to where they were gathered to avoid confusion and cross contamination (The Forensics Library, no date).
Analysis of Samples
The analysis of samples from the crime scene would go through the process depicted by the diagram below:
Forensic Evidence Linking Philpotts and Moseley with the Crime
The empty can of petrol found near Victoria Road with a piece of hand glove are one of the evidences found that implicate Philpotts and their associate Paul Moseley to the crime (Crime & Investigation, 2015). Traces of petrol found on the clothing of Philpotts and Moseley also implicate that the three had contact with the petrol used for setting the house ablaze (BBC News, 2013; Gerry, 2013). Further investigations found the exact string of events prior to the burning and killing of six children.
After the couple put the children in bed, they invited Paul Moseley to have drink with him (Crime & Investigation, 2015). For the three of them, the night progressed with the use of cannabis and sexual activity with one another (Crime & Investigation, 2015). By three in the morning, all three of them poured petrol on the floor, with Moseley getting rid of the petrol cans to avoid suspicion (Crime & Investigation, 2015). By around 3:30 am, Mick sets fire on the petrol effectively burning the house down from downstairs to the bedroom of the children upstairs (Crime & investigation, 2015). This all were gathered from the physical evidence taken from the scene of crime and from the recordings of the conversation between the three suspects (BBC News, 2013).
Why Did the Children Fail to Escape the Burning House?
Bibliography
BBC News. 2013. “Derby fire deaths: How police uncovered Mick Philpott’s lies.” BBC News England. Available online at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-22013080. (Accessed 31 Jan. 2017).
Brown, J. 2013. “Philpott fire trial: Guilty of manslaughter, but circumstances of the blaze remain largely unknown.” Independent. Available online at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/philpott-fire-trial-guilty-of-manslaughter-bu-circumstances-of-the-blaze-remain-largely-unknown-8557283.html. (Accessed 31 Jan. 2017).
Crime & Investigation. 2015. “Mick Philpott.” Crime & Investigation. Available online at http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/mick-philpott/crime. (Accessed 31 Jan. 2017).
Dolan, A., and P. Bentley. 2013. “‘We would like to take turns to sleep with Mick Philpott in a caravan’: Mistress of father accused of starting fire which killed six of his children tells jury of their unconventional lifestyle.” Daily Mail. Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278054/Mick-Philpotts-wife-Mairead-mistress-Lisa-Willis-turns-sleep-Mick-caravan.html (Accessed 31 Jan. 2017).
The Forensics Library. No date. Fire Investigation. Available online at http://www.aboutforensics.co.uk/fire-investigation/ (Accessed 31 Jan. 2017).
Gerry, F. 2013. “Philpott—why wasn’t it murder and when will he be free?” Halsbury’s Law Exchange. Available online at http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/philpott-why-wasnt-it-murder-and-when-will-he-be-free/ (Accessed 31 Jan. 2017).
Tomlinson, S. 2013. “‘They never stood a chance’: Sickening images of the blackened home where six Philpott children died as their mother and a family friend are found guilty of killing them in botched arson plot.” Daily Mail. Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302741/Philpott-family-deaths-Mick-Mairead-convicted-killing-children-house-Derby.html. (Accessed 31 Jan. 2017).
