Piles of documents stored in two large cardboard boxes in his office illustrate the commitment Assistant County Attorney David Walker made to the WoodGrains Furniture fire case in the last two years.

But as a prosecutor striving for justice, Walker said he believes dismissing the case this week was right thing to do. &uot;I’m satisfied with my decision. There is no doubt about it,&uot; he said.

&uot;I don’t want to manipulate the system and somehow lower the standard the jury should comply with to convict a person,&uot; Walker said. &uot;That’s not my interest, not the community’s interest.&uot;

Arson is always tough to prove.

Albert Lea Fire Department arson investigator Doug Johnson said of about 100 suspicious fires he has investigated since 1997, he could pin down only seven as arson without a doubt.

In all of the four convictions Johnson won, there was some type of concrete evidence, such as indications of a break-in, residual flammable materials used to set the fire, witnesses or a confession.

The fire scene at WoodGrains Furniture raised many questions that could not be explained by any other causes but arson, according to Johnson.

&uot;We had a lot of circumstantial evidence that pointed toward arson,&uot; Johnson said. &uot;At that time, we did not even know (owner) Bryan (Purdie)’s financial situation.&uot;

Though the lab test on the samples taken from the scene turned out to be negative, the investigators were convinced that it was arson when an expert engineer ruled out an electrical extension cord, the only ignitable item in the area around the fire, as the cause.

The original first-degree arson charge Walker brought was based on the use of flammable accelerant.

The first stage of the court battle with Purdie’s private defense attorney, Don Savelkoul, focused on evidence obtained at the scene from a combustible-gas detector, which had a positive reading. Savelkoul challenged the validity of the machine’s positive reaction, claiming it can go off because of a substance that may be naturally present or produced from burned materials.

Walker was confident, even without referring to the gas detector, he could sufficiently prove the presence of accelerant by abundant circumstantial evidence such as the burn pattern and extensive damage in the relatively short time period before crews extinguished the fire.

Walker subsequently amended the charges, using another provision of first-degree arson: Setting a fire on a building other people are present.

Public defender Stephen Erickson, Purdie’s second attorney, assigned after Savelkoul removed himself from the case, could have questioned the contention that the next building, connected by a door, is one unit. Instead, he directly struck down the core foundation upon which Walker relied.

Erickson pointed out one end of the extension cord was missing, making it impossible for the prosecution to prove the missing part could not have been the fire’s origin.

&uot;That was a fundamental change in this case,&uot; Walker said. More detailed forensic analysis on the remaining cord or reenactment of the fire using a model could be an option to pursue. But, Walker concluded it would be uncertain if the prosecution can demonstrate the truth without the actual end of the cord.

&uot;It is ideal to arrive at the truth, and the truth shows that the person is innocent. But, a legal principle is also important. A prosecutor is always required a high burden of proof to prevent inadvertent convictions,&uot; he said.