My theory is they are saying they didn't intentionally set the fire for two reasons. Reason number one is simple, they don't want to look like they just barbequed an alleged suspect. Seems simple enough. Reason number two however, I think there is a possibility that they didn't burn Dorner inside that building, and burned an innocent person instead. Now that would put a serious cramp in their style if true. Can you imagine the backlash? I sure as hell can't!
I think they did in fact burn someone, but they sure are taking their sweet time identifying a man that they claimed was definitely their guy. How long given his military records, his police records, and various other records should it really take to identify this person?
edit on 2/13/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)