Sniffing the evidence
By
Magdi Mehanna
Have forensic teams acted too hastily in already announcing the cause of the fire at the Citadel? I, for one, think so. They blamed a burning cigarette as the cause of last Friday's fire, inadequately extinguished cigarette butts being the usual suspect in 90 per cent of all fires in Egypt. The experts also dismissed the possibility of foul play. I am not saying they are necessarily wrong, but one would think that such conclusions could only be reached after material evidence from the scene is carefully collected and meticulously examined. And that, surely, must take more than a couple of days.
One cannot help but recall the terrible disaster that befell the Upper Egyptian train, claiming hundreds of victims. The technical committee charged with finding out the causes for that fire attributed the tragedy to a mysterious kerosene burner. The prosecutor general, under intense public pressure, had to dismiss their report and order another investigation.
The investigators should keep in mind that the Citadel fire broke out at 2am, and in an isolated quarter of the complex. How could a burning cigarette materialise at such an hour? Also, a committee from the Antiquities Department visited the site on the morning of that same day. Perhaps the visit and the fire are unrelated, but that's the sort of coincidence investigators are supposed to look at. The Antiquities committee was looking into the scene to assess the possibility of building a museum for Islamic doors on the site. Earlier the site had been suggested for a commercial complex, which was only jettisoned when intellectuals and archaeologists filed a court case. Following the fire, prospects for redeveloping the area have improved.
Is this history relevant to the case?
* This week's Soapbox speaker is the former editor-in-chief of Al-Wafd newspaper.
