Some facts seem at odds with arson guilt

Submitted by Roger Chapell (United States), Sep 6, 2004 at 09:54

While I agree that there is an appearance of fraud with attempt to commit arson in this case there are some things which bother me and provoke the principle of charity in my assessment. Your article says that Mr. Akram "schemed for months to burn it down." Yet the actual act of arson was childishly conceived and executed. In fact it seemed just like the kind of act that a hate crime consists of.

That Mr. Akram's insurance did not cover his store seems to mitigate against his alleged careful scheming since the insurance collection was the primary motive. Careful scheming would probably have entailed a review of the insurance policy and its coverage. That Mr. Akram did not know that the insurance policy did not cover his store seems to indicate innocence although stupidity is, admitedly, a common partner in crime.

Could the decline of receipts in his business be due to harassment? This is not a mitigating factor of course but we often associate declining receipts with poor businessmanship and often equate poor businessmanship with weak or dubious character.

The midnight calls are compelling I admit and so is state's evidence. Where can i find more information on this case?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".