Home

In late August, law enforcement officials announced that the investigation into an arson that destroyed the home of a lesbian couple and their child had reached a dead end. This concluded an investigation in which authorities increasingly tried to pin the arson on the women in a classic ¾blame-the-victims' scenario. Flames destroyed the home of Carla Grayson and Adrianne Neff on Feb. 8, 2002, only days after they were identified in the press as lesbians who were suing the University system for discrimination.

The plaintiffs in Snetsinger v. State of Montana accuse the Montana University System of violating the Montana Constitution by denying health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners of university employees. The lawsuit was originally filed on Feb. 4, 2002, and has since been appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. Just two days after filing the suit, Grayson and Neff, along with the other lesbian couple named in Snetsinger, received letters in the mail reading "Die Dykes" and claiming to contain anthrax. Two days later, Grayson and Neff's house was torched by arson while the couple and their toddler were sleeping inside.

Initially, the arson was categorized as attempted triple homicide. As time went on, investigators seemed to quit looking for suspects outside the home and tried to implicate Grayson, Neff and gay-rights advocates. An application for a search warrant stated arson investigators believed the arson may have been an inside job and that gasoline and rope, which were used in the arson, were found in the couple's garage. The warrant application also pointed to statements attributed to Neff and Grayson, along with mentioning possible financial motives for the arson. Around the same time, investigators questioned Karl Olson, director of PRIDE, Montana's gay and lesbian advocacy group. Calling him a "person of interest," law officers questioned Olson about where he was when the arson occurred and about money raised at rallies around the state in support of Grayson and Neff. They also insinuated they had information linking Olson to the arson, but they failed to provide any supporting facts.

The actions of Missoula law enforcement led many to believe that investigators were being driven by anti-gay bias and innuendo. The warrant application essentially put the couple on trial for the arson without giving them a chance for rebuttal, as would happen in a normal court proceeding. Instead, the couple was forced to release a statement to the media challenging the accusations and stating unequivocally that they did not start the fire or profit financially from it. Olson held a press conference at the Missoula County Courthouse to denounce the investigation, and the investigators' motives and tactics were repeatedly questioned by the Missoula community.

In announcing the close of the investigation, Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg told the media, "I'm basically making the determination that the arson investigation should be closed because we don't have sufficient evidence to prosecute anyone." He had been waiting on DNA and fingerprint tests being conducted by the FBI on the anthrax-threat letters. The tests apparently did not provide any new information. A letter from the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office recommended the case be closed.

Christine Kaufmann, co-director of the Montana Human Rights Network, acknowledged that arson crimes are difficult to solve, but questioned the thoroughness of the investigation. "It is always legitimate to examine every possible suspect in an investigation, but to focus so quickly and with such flimsy evidence on the victims as perpetrators did not serve the community well," she said. "There is still an arsonist on the loose in Missoula that poses a danger to all of us."