[notahacker]

Rumours about organizations behind the incident are normally in local pubs rather than national newspapers though. The last couple of arrests were only today, with three more released on bail. Proving it in a courtroom is another thing, but it sounds to me like more resource than would usually be thrown at investigating a fire in an empty building.

[AlecSchueler]

Rumours in the pub and rumours in the paper are no different in the court of law. Has any evidence been brought forward and has anyone been charged with a crime?

[notahacker]

Rumours in the national press are a lot more influential in allocating police resources to finding evidence and interviewing suspects than rumours in the local pub.

Not really sure why you're continuing to insist on a Sherlock Holmes style resolution where everyone's been charged and all evidence is in the public domain within the first couple of months, but what is evident is that it hasn't been abandoned like it often would have been by now.

[AlecSchueler]

You said that "Court admissible evidence is more likely to turn up when it's front page news and people are digging" and then used this as an example. I'm asking because it doesn't seem to actually be an example of what you're claiming.

[notahacker]

I used it as a topical example of another ongoing case where court admissible evidence was more likely to turn up because the police are more motivated to look for it and people with possibly relevant information more likely to testify, yes. If I had meant my outrageously bold claim that stuff is more likely to be found if more people look harder for it to rest entirely on this case, I would have said so!

If you're struggling to see any link between five people being bailed and a case being somewhat more thoroughly investigated and likely to make it to court than the average empty building arson, maybe leave the tedious armchair lawyering to someone who can.