Tweet
Nova Scotia Motel Arson-Owner Accused
AMHERST, N.S. (CP) - A motel owner accused of burning down part
of his own motel says he can't explain how gasoline got on the
jacket and boots he was wearing on the day of the fire.
Richard Seymour, 44, of Fort Lawrence, N.S., made the comment
Tuesday during his Nova Scotia Supreme Court trial on arson and
fraud charges stemming from the Jan. 11, 2002, explosion and fire
that destroyed the bar and grill portion of the Fort Lawrence
Motel.
Under cross-examination by Crown attorney Bruce Baxter, Seymour
said he had worn the same jacket when he worked on his truck and
filled it twice the day before. But he admitted he did not remember
spilling gas on it or on his feet.
In his summation, defence lawyer Jim O'Neil said the gas found
on Seymour's clothing was a red herring because even the Crown's
expert witness said the gas could have come in contact with the
jacket and boots while Seymour was filling up his truck.
In addition, O'Neil said, some witnesses' testimony that
accelerants were used in fires in the motel's downstairs hallway
and laundry and linen rooms could not be proved because the same
expert said no gas residue was found in the debris. O'Neil
suggested that flames falling from the ceiling could have started
the scattered fires.
Seymour also had no reason to set his motel on fire, his lawyer
said.
"His bills were paid up; his credit rating was good."
Baxter disagreed. He said $650,000 in insurance money was an
incentive and the evidence clearly indicates the fire was
deliberately set.
That evidence includes a propane gas line disconnected from a
hot water heater and twisted pieces of orange bed linen that
appeared to fire experts to be wicks or trailers used for spreading
the flames.
Expert evidence, Baxter said, showed that the burn patterns
found in the basement hallway and rooms were consistent with fires
started with an accelerant and not from flames falling from the
ceiling.
Baxter also rejected the defence's assertion that the explosion
or efforts to put out the fire separated the propane line from the
water heater.
"That's putting the cart before the horse," Baxter said.
He said three expert witnesses said the propane line had been
deliberately bent away from the water heater, allowing gas to
escape into the motel.
The jury was expected to begin deliberations Wednesday.
(Halifax
Chronicle-Herald)
(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
of his own motel says he can't explain how gasoline got on the
jacket and boots he was wearing on the day of the fire.
Richard Seymour, 44, of Fort Lawrence, N.S., made the comment
Tuesday during his Nova Scotia Supreme Court trial on arson and
fraud charges stemming from the Jan. 11, 2002, explosion and fire
that destroyed the bar and grill portion of the Fort Lawrence
Motel.
Under cross-examination by Crown attorney Bruce Baxter, Seymour
said he had worn the same jacket when he worked on his truck and
filled it twice the day before. But he admitted he did not remember
spilling gas on it or on his feet.
In his summation, defence lawyer Jim O'Neil said the gas found
on Seymour's clothing was a red herring because even the Crown's
expert witness said the gas could have come in contact with the
jacket and boots while Seymour was filling up his truck.
In addition, O'Neil said, some witnesses' testimony that
accelerants were used in fires in the motel's downstairs hallway
and laundry and linen rooms could not be proved because the same
expert said no gas residue was found in the debris. O'Neil
suggested that flames falling from the ceiling could have started
the scattered fires.
Seymour also had no reason to set his motel on fire, his lawyer
said.
"His bills were paid up; his credit rating was good."
Baxter disagreed. He said $650,000 in insurance money was an
incentive and the evidence clearly indicates the fire was
deliberately set.
That evidence includes a propane gas line disconnected from a
hot water heater and twisted pieces of orange bed linen that
appeared to fire experts to be wicks or trailers used for spreading
the flames.
Expert evidence, Baxter said, showed that the burn patterns
found in the basement hallway and rooms were consistent with fires
started with an accelerant and not from flames falling from the
ceiling.
Baxter also rejected the defence's assertion that the explosion
or efforts to put out the fire separated the propane line from the
water heater.
"That's putting the cart before the horse," Baxter said.
He said three expert witnesses said the propane line had been
deliberately bent away from the water heater, allowing gas to
escape into the motel.
The jury was expected to begin deliberations Wednesday.
(Halifax
Chronicle-Herald)
(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)