San Marcos arson case hits snag with suspect’s release
DA says prosecutors not prepared to go before grand jury
Families of the victims were flooded with relief when authorities announced they’d solved the mystery of who set the fire that engulfed the Iconic Village Apartments in San Marcos five years ago, killing five young people and severely injuring a sixth.
The arrest of Ja’cobe De Leon O Shea Ferguson, 30, held out the promise of closure and a measure of justice.
Cheryl Estes of San Antonio, whose son Dru died in the blaze, got word of the arrest on what would have been her son’s 25th birthday.
“We’re excited. This is a gift,” she said.
That was in early July. Now, nearly three months later, the families’ confidence has been shaken. Ferguson had been jailed since his arrest after failing to post $250,000 bail. Then, last week, Hays County’s criminal district attorney said prosecutors were not prepared to present the case against Ferguson to a grand jury, and that more investigation was needed.
The DA agreed to Ferguson’s release on his own recognizance, meaning he walked free without having to post any cash bond.
Here’s a look at the fire, the investigation and the latest developments.
When and where did the fire happen?
The Iconic Village Apartments was a low-rise apartment complex in the 200 block of Ramsay Street, several blocks from Texas State University. The tenants included students, recent graduates, musicians and artists, lending the place a bohemian air.
The fire broke out shortly before 4:30 a.m. on July 20, 2018, in Building 500. Most of the residents were asleep at the time.
They awoke to screams, the sound of breaking glass and the smell of smoke.
Did it spread quickly?
Yes. By the time firefighters arrived, flames had wrapped around the building’s metal roof, which soon collapsed. Some tenants suffered broken bones leaping from windows and balconies of second-floor apartments.
The bodies of five victims were found in the rubble of Building 500: Dru Estes, 20, of San Antonio; Belinda Moats, 21, of Big Wells; James Phillip Miranda, 23, of Mount Pleasant; and two roommates, Haley Frizzell, 19, of San Angelo, and David Ortiz, 21, of Pasadena.
A survivor, Zachary Sutterfield, now 25, of San Angelo, suffered third-degree burns over 68 percent of his body, along with a traumatic brain injury.
The blaze was so intense it took firefighters more than 13 hours to put it out.
Did the building have sprinklers?
It did not. San Marcos’ fire code requires sprinklers in newly constructed apartments, but buildings that went up before the requirement took effect were grandfathered in. The Iconic Village Apartments, built in 1970, was among the complexes that lacked sprinklers and were not required to retrofit.
Investigations conducted as part of civil litigation over the disaster uncovered other firesafety problems, including unreliable smoke detectors and a flawed roof design that fed oxygen to the fire. Those lawsuits were settled out of court on confidential terms.
How was the fire determined to be arson?
The San Marcos fire marshal brought in the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Texas State Fire Marshal’s Office to assist with the investigation. The ATF alone sent 50 agents to San Marcos for 10 days.
In December 2018, the federal agency’s Fire Research Laboratory determined that the blaze began when someone set fire to a discarded mattress in “the defined area of origin” — a breezeway next to Building 500.
Authorities offered a reward for information leading to the identification and arrest of those responsible. Initially $10,000, the reward was later increased to $110,000.
What led to the arrest of a suspect?
For several years, the search for the culprit seemed to have hit a dead end, and the victims’ families began to despair that the arsonist would ever be brought to justice.
Then last fall, authorities created a task force of local, state and federal agencies, including the Texas Rangers Cold Case Unit, in hopes of recharging the investigation. San Marcos Fire Marshal Jonathan Henderson said the move brought “fresh enthusiasm” and insights.
Ferguson, who previously lived in the Iconic Village Apartments, had been on investigators’ radar from the beginning.
Weldon Moore, a former resident of the complex, told investigators in 2018 that on the day after the fire, he and Ferguson discussed ways it could have started and Ferguson talked about the flammability of mattresses. That’s according to the probable cause affidavit supporting Ferguson’s arrest.
When investigators interviewed Ferguson four days after the fire, he denied any knowledge of the mattress, the affidavit states. But they knew that another resident of the complex had left a mattress for Ferguson when she moved out and had attached a card bearing his name.
Confronted with this information, Ferguson admitted that he’d lied, that he did know about the mattress and that he’d been too busy to pick it up, according to affidavit.
Still, investigators didn’t think they had enough evidence against him to make an arrest.
What happened to change that?
Members of the task force pored over hundreds of investigative reports, reviewed hours of police bodycam footage and reviewed extensive data on the fire. Then they reinterviewed some key witnesses and gleaned additional details, some of which directly implicated Ferguson and pointed to a motive for the crime.
The new information led investigators to believe they now could make an arson charge stick.
Moore, elaborating on his account from 2018, told them that on the day after the fire, Ferguson suggested it could have started with a “stray spark or someone intentionally setting fire to this mattress,” the affidavit states.
Moore said Ferguson later admitted that he “lit the mattress on fire,” and Ferguson described how the fire spread “super-fast” and became “superhot,” according to the affidavit. The two men discussed what charges Ferguson might face.
Moore said Ferguson had been “frustrated” in the period leading up to the fire because a woman who lived in Building 500 had “rejected” him after they went on a date, and because another woman had stuck him with responsibility for disposing of the mattress, the affidavit states.
“Moore stated Ferguson had a ‘contempt for women’ at this point,” the affidavit states.
Investigators also reinterviewed the woman who left the mattress behind for Ferguson. She said he told her “to lie” to investigators back in 2018 and not to say anything about the mattress, according to the affidavit.
When Ferguson found out that investigators planned to interview the woman again this year, he urged her to say “it had been five years and she did not remember,” the affidavit says.
Then what?
On the morning of July 5, agents of the U.S. Marshals Service took Ferguson by surprise at an Austin convenience store and brought him into custody. He was charged with arson causing bodily injury or death. A magistrate set bail at $250,000, which he was unable to post.
Ferguson was initially held at the Hays County Jail in San Marcos, where he was placed under suicide watch for several days. Because of crowding at the jail, he was moved to the Rolling Plains Detention Center in Haskell, about 160 miles west of Fort Worth.
What’s Ferguson’s background?
He’s originally from Tyler, and he has no previous criminal record.
He earned a degree from Texas State and lived for a time in Building 500 at Iconic Village, though he later moved to another building in the complex.
He was working as a cook at the Tap Room in San Marcos at the time of the tragedy.
Efforts to reach him for comment have been unsuccessful.
What’s happened to make the case seem shakier than it did at first?
At the news conference in July where they announced Ferguson’s arrest, Henderson and other law enforcement officials projected great confidence that they’d found the guilty party.
The next step was for prosecutors to present the evidence to a grand jury and secure an indictment. That’s where the case has hit a snag.
Last week, Hays County Criminal District Attorney Kelly Higgins said prosecutors were not prepared to put the case before a grand jury and that further investigation was required.
What are the holes in the case?
No one is saying, but the evidence described in the arrest affidavit appears to be circumstantial. To judge from that document, authorities have not found a witness who saw Ferguson actually start the fire. If they have physical evidence implicating him in the act, they have not disclosed it.
What did the delay mean for Ferguson?
It meant he could get out of jail.
Under Texas law, a felony defendant who hasn’t been indicted by a grand jury can’t be kept in custody for more than 90 days. Ferguson would have hit that limit next week.
So last week, the DA’S office and Ferguson’s defense lawyer made a joint motion for him to be released on a personal recognizance bond. A judge approved the motion, and Ferguson was transported from Haskell to Hays County, where he was freed on Saturday afternoon.
Were any restrictions placed on him?
Yes. He has to submit to regular drug testing and is barred from using alcohol, marijuana or any “habit-forming drugs” or controlled substances not prescribed by a doctor.
He’s forbidden to have any contact with victims of the fire or their families. He can’t leave his home from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. except for work, school, religious observance or to meet with his lawyer. He has to wear a GPS device around his ankle, and he’s not allowed to go within 1,000 feet of where the Iconic Village Apartments once stood.
What happens next?
Higgins said he’s not giving up on the case and hasn’t dropped the arson charge against Ferguson. He and others involved in the matter say they’ll continue investigating and are determined to see justice done.
What happened to the Iconic Village Apartments?
The fire-damaged buildings were demolished and replaced, and the complex has been renamed Campus Trailhead.