TikTok Couple TORCHED Abandoned Home: Cops

He's only gonna do TikTok with me now because he trusted me more than he trusted anybody else. I'm gonna be real with you. This is a bizarre case in a lot of ways. It's because of who is allegedly involved, a West Virginia couple whose relationship has gone viral in recent years. They are now in the spotlight for an entirely different and potentially criminal reason. Authorities say they set a house on fire, then stood back to enjoy the show and now they're both facing very serious charges. Let's dig into it. We're on the case presented by Lawncrime. I'm Chris Stewart. This story's gone viral because the people who are accused in this story, they go viral for a living. They're TikTok stars and what they're accused of is somewhat difficult to wrap your head around and there's a lot of questions that are still unanswered but we did just get documents in from prosecutors in this case in West Virginia. So I want to break this down and maybe you already follow this couple on social media. I didn't know about them before this but certainly we do now. All of this begins on September 27th around 11 o'clock at night and Charleston, West Virginia firefighters are called to a home and this place is up in flames. Now fortunately this house is abandoned but that doesn't mean that this is a victimless crime. There's a church that was damaged in any time. You have a structure like this that is burning. There is danger and especially for the firefighters who show up. Now this home was reportedly still smoldering on Monday morning when investigators tried to figure out what happened and it didn't take long for them to find the suspects because the suspects did it allegedly right in the sight of surveillance cameras and they say the two suspected arsonists are 21 year old Dakota Harper and 22 year old Felicity Eatman. Now this couple is kind of famous in a corner of the internet. They have a pretty large following on TikTok and they've been featured in other major content creator videos over the years. Harper has dwarfism and this pair they've seemed to have decided to document a unconventional let's say and frankly oftentimes tumultuous relationship. This pair there have been allegations made in the past that Eatman is abusive toward Harper and that's a claim that she has denied in her videos. And whoever says that I freaking hit him like a soccer ball. There is no scars on him y'all. He's literally fine. He's got no scars. You could see on his arms. No scars. No. Nothing. And like look, hang on. I'm gonna sit ready. I'm just literally nothing on his body at all. Literally nothing. So he's fine y'all. Tell him you're happy, huh? Say I'm happy boy. He is the happiest man ever. Now this pair they have thousands of followers on social media and they're getting a lot of new attention as prosecutors have charged them both with arson and conspiracy to commit arson. Those are serious felonies that could mean up to 25 years in prison. A criminal complaint filed against the two lays out the accusations and we just got this in from prosecutors in West Virginia. I'm going to read part of it for you so you can kind of picture what's going on. Quote during the course of the investigation. Investigators obtained and reviewed video surveillance footage depicting Dakota Harper and Felicity Eatman together in the alleyway adjacent to 405 Maryland Avenue immediately prior to the fire. The surveillance footage depicts Harper and Eatman acting together as they approach and access the side door area of the residence. The footage depicts Eatman providing Harper with what appears to be a piece of paper. Harper and Eatman are then observed using a handheld ignition source, the exact type of which is presently unknown to produce an open flame and ignite the paper. The burning material is then placed inside the residence. Now approximately 30 to 45 seconds later Harper and Eatman return to the side door area of the residence upon returning. Eatman enters and partially enters the structure and is observed reaching into the interior of the residence for an unknown reason. Eatman remains standing in or near the doorway for approximately two to three minutes. Harper is also visible in the surveillance footage during this period, but subsequently leaving the cameras field of view before Eatman. Quote while Eatman remains at or near the doorway, the developing fire becomes visible on the surveillance footage as lights and/or flames reflecting from within the doorway area. The coordinated actions depicted on the surveillance footage provide probable cause to believe that Dakota Harper and Felicity Eatman acted pursuant to an agreement to intentionally set fire to the residence and committed overt acts in furtherance of that agreement. Now West Virginia media outlet WCHS was on scene as fire crews battled this this blaze and while that home again, it was abandoned. So you're not dealing with a situation where you're concerned about the safety of the people inside, but there's a method is church next door that sustained thousands of dollars in damage according to that media outlet. Both Harper and Eatman were arrested. Then they were arraigned on Tuesday before being locked up on $10,000 bail each and they could both face between five and 25 years in prison if they are convicted. And I will note that Dakota Harper when he saw cameras in the courtroom and we don't have this video for you, but he did for lack of a better term flip the bird at the camera. So far, there don't seem to be any claims that this couple was recording in any sort of way that this was an act to try and get clout on social media, but the motive of why they would allegedly do this is still unclear. And we also want to talk a little bit about who they are because that's part of the reason that this story is getting so much attention. And this is not their first run-in with the law. It was just in May, just a few months ago, that they were charged with two misdemeanors, unlawful removal, injury to or destruction of property and conspiracy to inflict injury to persons or property. And they had been released on $500 bonds in those cases. Now online court records in West Virginia do not give details about the alleged destruction of property, but they do show that Eatman agreed to take a plea in exchange for dropping the conspiracy charge. And that just happened on September 8th, just weeks before she was arrested again. Now, as far as Harper, he faces the same charges as Eatman did from May, but his case is still moving forward. His online court records show that he is scheduled to have a bench trial in February. Now, after their release from jail in spring, so we're talking about the May incident, they posted a video on social media about their experiences in jail where Eatman addressed her, quote, "enemy on the inside." I wasn't in there for destruction of property, girl. I wasn't in there because I beat his butt up. I would never hurt him. There's a ring on my finger, girl. Yeah. Look at it. A preliminary hearing related to the arson case has been scheduled for Monday, October 5th. We'll keep an eye on it. Join us now to talk more about this as arson investigator, Robert Roe. Great to have you on long crime, as always, when we talk about these particular cases. There's a lot of attention on this, just what stands out to you when you read it for the first time? Well, in a lot of the cases that I've been involved with, arson cases, when you have subjects, in this matter, because it's still under scrutiny now, but the main thing that pops out in my mind is the fact that they stay behind on this case, on the fire, and they basically kind of hang around a little bit after the fire is set, just I don't know if it's whether it's watching or excitement or whatever, but rarely do you see somebody stick around. I've had a couple cases where the actual suspect will be in the crowd. This case was more of a lingering hang around and check and see. I didn't get a chance to look at the video, but they're clearly identified in the video, but arson of an uninhabited structure or vacant structure is not an uncommon thing, and there are different measures that people can take to secure their property. It seems like, and we can kind of dive into what the description of the surveillance video is, that links them to this scene. It seems to be pretty damning. It seems like it wasn't much of a who-done it in terms of who would have set the fire, just based off what the video showed, but when you're investigating something like this, what more do you need? Because you can prove that they were there, but how do you prove that this was an intentionally set fire? Well, accidental fires and intentionally set fires are two clearly different modes of fire or imagination. When you have suspects or subjects in the area that are lighting materials on fire, whether it be a can of gas or whether it be a common combustible that is lit and thrown into a structure, there's different methodologies of arson in this particular case. It was just using common combustible. But when you light something in your card on video and you throw it into a structure later on finding out it's an abandoned structure, it's pretty clear that this is an intentional act. With regard to the identification of the suspect, definitely a unique identifiers with both parties, so it's kind of hard not to think about what is the story behind this. And so obviously investigators were able to piece it together. I want to read just this is the part from the criminal complaint that explains the surveillance footage. It says, quote, the surveillance footage depicts Harper and Eamon acting together as they approach and access the side door area of the residents, the footage depicts Eamon providing Harper with what appears to be a piece of paper. Harper and Eamon are then observed using a handheld ignition source, the exact type of which is presently unknown to produce an open flame and ignite the paper. The burning material is then placed inside the residence approximately 30 to 45 seconds later Harper and Eamon return to the side area of the residents upon returning Eamon enters or partially enters the structure and is observed reaching into the interior of the residents for an unknown reason. Eamon remains standing in or near the doorway for approximately two to three minutes Harper is also visible in the surveillance footage during the period but subsequently leaving the cameras field of view before Eamon and then they're just kind of like there like watching it. Like that narrative like if you're you know you're putting together this criminal case you know against these two like what are you know clearly lighting something and then putting it in the building is is that you know it's figurative smoking gun moment but like what is it about the way that they acted. And I know we talked about like hanging around being a bit odd but just like looking at that like how do you put that together and then kind of bring it forward for a criminal case. Well you know there's there's various motives for setting fires I mean there's insurance fraud there's basically retaliation there's there's various reasons why people set fire. And in my gut on this you know case is that it's more of an excitement thing more of a fascination with fire and that is what usually brings a person to not run away to actually sit and watch or stand and watch the fire grow. So why they reached into the building after the fact I don't know maybe it was to readjust the flame to make it more effective or maybe they were pushing curtains away to see it better I mean who knows the reason I mean that'll all come out in the investigation I think depending on what their cooperation level is but in a lot of cases the excitement of watching a fire is very common in my world a lot of times we will identify in our suspect in a crowd or close by watching the actual fire destroy the house. So you know I'll never know what the inner workings of this investigation will bring out but as an investigator I mean I would definitely drill down on the fact number one I mean with a video surveillance there's not a whole lot of room for them to move around and say they weren't there. But in this case you kind of have to drill down on why and once they are you know basically learned that they're not going to have any lateral movement or get out of the case typically they'll be a little bit more cooperative and kind of explain exactly you know what was in their mind sometimes they just I don't know it's a fascination with fire we watched it. Maybe they want to see the fire trucks arrive and put it out I mean there's a lot of different reasons why people stick around maybe it's just to see it burn you know it's just some kind of an excitement and that we find that fairly common in cases like this. And in a lot of cases I mean maybe it's a murder maybe whatever it may be like you don't need to have the motive to prove that somebody did it it's nice to have you know prosecutors like to be able to have that to present to a jury. In an arson case like this where you know you have the surveillance video you know I'm sure the science on the inside will will link them to that like how important is figuring out exactly why they would allegedly do this. You know I don't think the proving a motive is critical in an arson case it is helpful if you can sit with them and talk to them and determine what the motive is but the simple fact that you've got them identified on video. Basically igniting a piece of material throwing it into the building being able to positively identify them as the actual subjects in the case is huge. At that point I think the motive although nice to be able to understand and present it and they may not ever say why but the fact that you have them recorded on video and you're able to positively identify them as the subjects in this arson case. I think that's plenty for a jury to be able to consider and say okay that without without doubt you know it's it's these two individuals just by the description on the video. So they are accused of lighting this abandoned house on fire and also apparently did damage to a church so like by no means is this like a victimless crime and it's obviously incredibly dangerous. The fact that it wasn't abandoned home this wasn't like a church that had people inside of it that was the initial target like how does that impact the investigation because you know to your point. I feel like we see a lot of situations across the country when it comes to arson where you have these abandoned properties that end up being the target. Well you know in this case you know the charges I'm not sure exactly what how it is applied in a different jurisdiction I know in California you know we have different penal codes that address the different types of fires. Most important and probably the most critical charge is arson of an inhabited structure in this case because it was not inhabited there's going to be there's still be charges of arson. I don't know if they require the the subjects to be to register as arsonist it's the same type of thing in California we have to you know the anybody that sets a fire deliberately and is as found guilty of setting that fire. They have to register as an arsonist in California so they can't really move around they can't really do anything without registering and contacting local law enforcement. Because this case involves a arson of an uninhabited structure the charges are little less strict because there you know there was no inhabited structure involved no one was injured no one was killed in this fire it was more of a property related matter it still holds a serious charge because arson is obviously a serious charge. But the level of penalty is a little bit less than that of an occupied structure so you know I think in this case I don't know where the prosecutors are going I've been involved in cases where where the the subject or the suspect are going to call them they're charged with arson. It's not a light sentence or it's not a light penalty but it's lighter than had they started a fire in an occupied structure so I think it's it's you know it's it's critical it could have been devastating but you know in this case it wasn't. So in California you it's almost like a you know very different type of crime obviously but like being a sex offender you know and someone has to register as a sex offender you know and that restricts where they can move like how common is it that someone has to register as you know related to an arson they were convicted of. It's it's very common if they're charged and convicted of an arson it's it's a mandate here you have to you have to file wherever you move to you have to to report to local law enforcement and you have to sign in with law enforcement that you're living this particular area so it's it's the same you're right it's exactly the same as a sex crime so you know when employers you know look at your background and they see that. That charge it makes it difficult for someone to get a job actually so you know I've had cases where they had they were charged and they had to register and it really you know as far as the time frame i'm not sure exactly if it's if it's a lifetime or if it's you know a certain number of years that it can be removed from your record but. To be to to be registered arson arsonist in the state is very debilitating as far as your occupations concerned because it limits you depends on the employer so. And then just generally because I think in this case you know the surveillance video shows allegedly you know some intent and like how this all went down but there are also a lot of cases and and we talked about one in the past that looked like someone was trying to. And you know stage in arson so this is just more about like my interest in it like how soon you know say you get called to a scene you know typically can you tell that this was something that someone set as opposed to you know you're you know sadly we see him like house fires or there might be like an electrical issue that would lead to it like what is like the process you get on scene and you figure out exactly what happened. Well, with all investigators, we're trying to a level of standard, which is recognizing the court, which is the National Fire Protection Association 9/21, which is the guide to fire and explosion investigations. We all are held to that standard of care. And the number one thing, the first part of the publication is that you conduct your investigation using the scientific methodology, meaning that you have to evaluate and basically process evidence, collect evidence, and collect information about what your findings are, and then you have to develop a hypothesis. But importantly, you have to then prove the hypothesis. So you gather all this information, and you develop, well, this is, this, it started this way or that way, you have to be able to prove that in the court using the scientific methodology. So witness statements, video surveillance, fingerprints, DNA, all these different factors that are typically used in an investigation into crime, is the same level of care that we have to take as investigators. So to answer the question, when we arrive on a scene like this, we have to rule out all other possible causes before we can identify this as being a deliberately set fire. That means we have to investigate the fire. We have to look at any electrical contributing factors. We have to look at any fuel, natural gas supplies leaking. We have to look at maybe habitation of homelessness, accidental fire type situation. So I mean, you have to go through those, you have to jump through those hoops, as they say, to be able to get to your theory that it wasn't a deliberately set fire. So the investigators are going to have to go through that process first, because when they go into the courtroom, of course the defense will throw up those roadblocks, say, well, did you look at this and did you look at that, you know, did you roll electrical? My understanding is that the building was vacant and abandoned and reading some of the materials that I read, it looks as if there was no electrical live in the building. So that strengthens the case even more because now your accidental causational factors are becoming minimized. And it starts to bring to light that this was deliberately set fire. And it didn't seem like with just, I mean, how clear the surveillance video, at least from the description, appears to be, you know, and of course, everything's an allegation at this point, you know, how much thinking did the suspects do about covering their tracks and all of that doesn't seem like a lot. We'll see what happens next though. This case is getting a lot of attention, very bizarre case kind of based on the people who are involved, Robert Roe, Arson Investigator, always great to have you on Longcrime, help us understand these cases. We appreciate it. It's a pleasure, Ollie. Always. That'll do it for on the case presented by Longcrime. I'm Chris Stewart. We'll see you next time. [MUSIC PLAYING]