subbie writes:
If we're just going to toss out wild, unsupported speculation, I can't rule out the possibility that Hurst set the fire and his report is an attempt to keep his own fat out of the fire, if you'll pardon the pun. No amount of baseless devil's advocacy is going to change the fact that Hurst said, "It was just a fire." There is no positive evidence of arson that has not been soundly refuted, and the only positive evidence we have is Hurst's statement that "It was just a fire." Only the most stubborn solopsist, simply taking a contrary position for the sake of arguing, can claim anything else without producing more evidence than has been presented here.
Isn't this an appeal to authority?