deaf mute defendant after he was found unfit to stand trial because of difficulty communicating with counsel and because of a lack of understanding of the legal process the state really failed to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of arson and the facts of this case that were proved by the state can be very quickly so the first is that the fire marshal testified that the cause of the fire was  able to place anybody at the scene that could have had that circumstance on hold for that reason he concluded that it could not have been an accidental start over i know that the state presented in evidence was a video  presence by any means in the air and the the defendant was seen on video writing around there is a bout a five minute segment where the defendant is not seen on the one main camera given his route and as perhaps as explained later the defendant can be seen for the first thirty forty five seconds of this violent period and you can be seen on another camera for the final thirty forty five seconds between he writes his bicycle into basically what i'm going to call games here you're of the neighborhood and because he's not seen the state maintained a trial and the court found that that was proof of the defendant's guilt because he couldn't be seen  seen that but there are some problems with videotape even in this day and age and one is that it is not as comprehensive as we might normally believe that and what the one particular scene the only scen in which the defendant the scene inside of this law what shows most notably is this that the defendant actually had to have left the block and wasn't seen by a video camera during that time and the reason that i say that is  you will vision the start of that video and that's i believe i don't recall the number of you but then videos stars on the northeast corner of the map and he proceeds from the northeast he comes down about halfway and we're talking about an area that is bordered by eighteenth street on the west nineteenth street on the east on the north by second avenue on the bottom by thursday of this section is divided down the middle from north  south by an alley way and each of the two sections that it creates is divided east and west by an alleyway that goes from eighteenth street in the north part of the central way and then from the center alley a little bit south of he got to the west of the fire where the fires or even back never left the ball the only way according to the state's reza taishan of the video cameras and to the videos that are shown that he could have gotten past the sides of the fire to be able to turn around and come back is to driven into the west brom's but all we see is him writing his buy from west to east and there's nothing to show how it is that you got there without leaving the one of the difficulties that we have with the evidence that is that is that it doesn't show that the defendant was within but even if the defendant is presumed to have been within the block or assumed the amount of time again that the right and in fact the case law suggests that the mere fact of the fire is not sufficient to prove that arson here there is no ability of the state to prove that the defendant or anybody committed the fire because the fire marshal was not able to say what the source of the fire was or what the cause of the fire was but more specifically there's no showing that the defendant himself committed the act and started the fire whether there is because of the fact the dude shown on seven different cameras four which are all the same scene just from different angles there's a brief time where he's he has over to seize a cab and then there's a time where he's driving in the same dozens or in the same direction facility look at the hands and this is pure speculation in part to say that because he had a bicycle with a while that was from all descriptions at about the same height as would be needed to look into the hole that are in the back of the old mississippi can't they the fact that the defendant went there and was looking at patz first of all again he could have used the second there's no showing that he had there is no evidence of matches there is no evidence of accelerant and so aren't seems to be dividing line in the case law as to whether an act is considered intentional or knowingly committed or not and here we don't have the pres arson but he concluded that he couldn't find that there was anybody in there that would have fit that circumstance as he what we respect least in the to the extent that the fire marshal couldn't find somebody that the circumstance for being accidental fire marshal also couldn't find anybody who fit the circumstance of having to do it intentionally and then another indication of intention or doing something knowingly that is found within the cases is where there as in the cases where a defendant owed one hundred thousand dollars or another one zero to three hundred thousand dollars that is where and they destroyed their own buildings for the insurance money where there's that kind of motive then there is more consideration for the fire had been intentional or knowing started here and there was no motive that was demonstrated or the could be shown as to why the defendant would have done this intentional act in fact it was the defendant who started the fire at all indeed it is the person who started and there is no showing of any of those factors thus the state has failed to meet its burden beyond a reasonable doubt the fire marshal's rationale was that he couldn't explain this being and he said we often prove this by the process of elimination and in many ways that's exactly what the trial judge in this case did but this is not our system is not one where it's simply a process of elimination well it must be somebody else the trial her said had to be somebody and we can't pin it on anybody else so we got pin it please the court then reduces people did not prove him not guilty of arson beyond a reasonable doubt there's extensive testimony at the discharge hearing that you clips from many different locations showed contractor and contractor stabilize the structure so that they could dent in demolish it by hand rather than using a larger machine that they would normally use the fire code on a saturday morning early morning in the demolition was scheduled to begin little bit of a timeline but you are correct that we don't know how long it took for the fire to get to the stage that it got to or was noticed and that's one of the difficulties here and it's another difficulty of the video those that are shown because none of them har according to the same standard we have some better off when our some of them are off by half hour some better off by two minutes sometimes we know that they're faster they're slow and sometimes we don't and so it is difficult to say exactly when it is the fire it's also unfair it's not accurate to say that there could have been anybody else within the area who could done this one normal person who could easily be a suspect was another person on a bike trailer and i say obvious you could tell something was there we go the other thing is that again while while the defendant was insane there were people who had access and in fact the bartender said he was in the halley and he was at the place where the cats are because he was feeding the cats and what is demonstrates is that people were able to get back there and not be seen on the only reason that the police know that the bartender was back there because the setting was the fact that somebody could get to within that area and not be seen on camera again creates a further difficulty for the state to say that the fact that the defendant was not seen but was near your area  necessity must have done and again finally while the fire marshal says that the fire was intentional because that's part of this definition of incendiary he can't say how it was that it started just that however it started it must have been by somebody who didn't intentionally and not accidentally over who conceded that it could have been accidental except he didn't think that there were any people within that area who would have qualified as somebody having acted accident the judge alluded to the fact that it well could have been accidental because maybe he just didn't see the cans and the judge didn't go so far as to say that it must have been been done intentionally because the judge's definition of inte will hear is that he simply struck the man but is as we've discussed it takes much more than that to constitute the offense of ours because those steps were not proved the defendant in request