Investigator reassesses ignition point of massive Holy Fire, but says resident is still believed to have set the blaze

An investigator acknowledged Wednesday that he has reassessed the ignition point of the massive Holy fire – which burned through more than 23,000 acres in Orange and Riverside counties – but still believes the blaze was intentionally set by a resident of the rural canyon where it began.

During a daylong hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence for Forrest Clark, 51, to stand trial, Donald Ford, an Orange County Fire Authority investigator, admitted that he hadn’t notified prosecutors until Wednesday morning that he now believes the fire began Aug. 6 in the general area of a cabin owned by a neighbor Clark had threatened, rather than inside of the cabin.

Ford testified that  flames likely ignited outside the cabin in rustic Holy Jim Canyon, before setting the building ablaze. The structure fire then spread into nearby brush, the arson investigator said, and, driven by strong winds, grew rapidly.

A second investigator — Officer Albert Banh of the U.S. Forest Service — said he was aware that Clark had threatened to kill the owner of the cabin where the fire is believed to have started.  Banh said Clark speculated that the fire could have been started with candles, and may have ignited near the window of his neighbor’s cabin he admitted to breaking.

But while the investigators testified that they were confident the fire was started intentionally, they acknowledged that they didn’t know the exact location where it started, what heat source ignited it and whether any flammable liquids were used. They also acknowledged that there was no physical evidence directly tying Clark to the alleged arson.

Deputy District Attorney Jake Jondle on Wednesday afternoon asked Orange County Superior Court Judge Gregg L. Prickett to dismiss two felony counts of resisting arrest that Clark was facing. Clark is still accused of four remaining felony counts, including arson and making criminal threats.

Ford said Clark was wearing nothing but a medallion around his neck when the investigator first encountered him on Aug. 7. Clark, whose cabin was the only one in the area not to burn, spoke at length to the investigators, Ford testified, but kept going off into tangents and was difficult to keep focused.

Ford told Clark’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Nicole Parness, that when he was talking to Clark he was not aware that Clark had a short-time prior spent time under medical care in an involuntary mental health hold. Parness asked if Ford believed that Clark met the profile of a typical arsonist.

“Do they typically start (fires) close to their own worldly possessions and then go right back into their own house?” Parness asked

“I’ve received calls where people have set their own houses on fire,” Ford replied.

In a report written on Aug. 8, Ford concluded that the fire had been ignited within Clark’s neighbors cabin. He later learned that 911 callers had reported seeing flames outside the cabin before it was on fire, the investigator testified, leading him to alter his conclusions.

“Is there a reason you waited months to tell anyone your conclusion had changed?” Parness asked.

“Inexperience,” Ford said.

In a previous court hearing, Parness said a police report indicates that another person had been identified as a “viable suspect” in setting the Holy fire. The prosecutor has downplayed that suspicion as the speculation of one specific investigator.

The Southern California News Group is not identifying the other person named by the defense attorney as a possible suspect, since he has not been charged with a crime or identified by a law enforcement agency as a suspect or person of interest. The only reference to that person during testimony on Wednesday was when Ford said Clark had told him about a “lucid dream” he had in which the other person broke into his shed, took a gas can, poured it through the broken window in the other cabin and ignited the fire.

Clark, taking part in the first hearing where he was allowed to sit in an open courtroom next to his attorney rather than being confined to a holding cage, appeared calm, a far cry from earlier hearings where he repeatedly spoke over judges and loudly offered a series of seemingly disconnected thoughts.

Testimony from investigators is scheduled to continue on Thursday morning. After the testimony ends, a judge will decide whether the case can proceed to trial.