The previous arcticles said that they did not have evidence to prove murder. Instead, they got this guy based on his own confession where he kinda admitted he may have started the fire. Maybe the house caught fire when he lit the dog on fire,  aye a cigarette wasn't put out all the way. In any case he didn't mean for anyone to die. All his words, they could not prove it was deliberate or murder, so they got him for manslaughter for the fire he admitted he may have caused. They all know he did it, they know he set the house on fire because they refused to let him in the house to party. Lack of evidence. If the guy was smarter he wouldn't have admitted anything he probably wouldn't have even been able to be charged.