Fire investigator insists 2003 house fire that killed three children was arson

Although a jury convicted Deborah Nicholls and her husband Tim of triple homicide nearly three decades ago, she has maintained that the house fire that killed their three children was accidental.COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (CN) — In the three decades since fire investigator Kirk Schmitt first entered the home of Tim and Deborah Nicholls, guidelines have evolved around how to interpret burn marks and navigate confirmation bias. Schmitt, however, testified Tuesday that the group-investigation he used to conclude the Nicholls intentionally torched their home remains airtight.“I have not updated my 2006 report because it wasn’t created by just one person. It was a constant process where we were reevaluating everything,” Schmitt said. “No one person searched that living room, it was a team of at least six people.”On March 7, 2003, the Nicholls’ children — 11-year-old Jay, 5-year-old Sophia and 3-year-old Sierra — died in the fire that consumed their Colorado Springs home.That day, Deborah Nicholls had cleaned the house and lit candles before going to work at her karaoke bar. She maintains her innocence, saying the fire was an accident.Prosecutors, however, say the Nicholls conspired to douse the furniture in chemical cleaners and torch the house to collect insurance proceeds to pay off drug debt — a story corroborated by a jailhouse informant who testified that he heard Tim Nicholls confess.Convinced by prosecutors’ evidence of arson, a jury convicted Deborah Nicholls of her children’s murder in 2008. Her husband was similarly convicted in 2007. They are both serving life sentences and lost their initial appeals.The 2023 revelation of a 2007 report from a Colorado Bureau of Investigation analyst, however, prompted Senior District Judge Robert Mullins to hold a weeklong Brady hearing in 2025. In August, Mullins vacated Deborah Nicholls’ conviction and ordered a new trial.Under the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors are required to turn over all evidence that may help prove a defendant’s innocence. Had the jury been presented with two reports supporting the accident theory, Mullins reasoned they might have reached a different conclusion about the defendant’s culpability.Tuesday marked the second of three days scheduled to determine whether to grant Nicholls’ motion for bond pending a new trial. In asking 23rd Judicial District Judge Catherine Helton to deny bond, prosecutors called Schmitt and several other investigators who worked the case to recall their findings three decades ago.Schmitt was one of four fire investigators to generate a report on the fire. In 2003, Schmitt and a private analyst each issued reports identifying flammable xylenes, which prosecutors postulated came from Goof Off cleaner sprayed on the furniture.In 2006, Deborah Nicholls’ defense consulted with a third expert, John Lentini, who found no evidence of ignitable liquids and argued that the state’s evidence had been contaminated.The Lentini report in hand, prosecutors consulted with a fourth expert at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Tom Griffin, whose findings corroborated the Lentini report, developing exculpatory materials that were never disclosed to Nicholls’ trial team. Griffin’s notes were ultimately uncovered by a CBI fire analyst who conducted a fifth analysis in 2023 based on modern standards, issuing a new report that aligned with both Lentini and Griffin in finding indications of contamination but not fire fuel.The four original reports agreed the fire likely originated in the living room, but each pinpointed a different point of origin. Schmitt believes the fire originated from multiple pieces of furniture, lending credence to the arson theory. In addition, Schmitt maintains he found no evidence of candle debris and found Tim Nicholls’ recollection of witnessing the fire intensify inconsistent with the flashover fire that would have likely killed him instantly had he watched it from his upstairs landing.In the end, Schmitt saw the puzzle pieces all pointing to arson.“You look at all possible sources of ignition, you look at electrical, you look at candles, were they smokers? No, they were not. You rule out child play. You look for any potential sources of ignition and we didn’t find any,” Schmitt testified.On behalf of Nicholls, defense attorney Janene McCabe pressed Schmitt on the way fire science has developed in the years since his original investigation.“Just because you didn’t find a candle didn’t mean it wasn’t there, correct?” McCabe asked.Helton added a third day to Nicholls’ bond hearing for Sept. 30. Helton’s decision will come nearly three decades after Nicholls was sentenced to life in prison, 14 months after she argued she was subjected to a Bradyviolation, five months after a senior judge ruled her rights had indeed been violated during her original trial, and more than a month after her conviction was vacated.Prosecutors are appealing Mullins’ order, but the case remains sealed to the public.Categories / Appeals, CriminalSubscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads