County investigators say a July 21 residential blaze was deliberately set; charging papers describe threats recorded before the fire.
GLEN BURNIE, Md. — What began as a late-night house fire on Aster Drive became an attempted-murder case after Anne Arundel County investigators concluded the blaze was intentionally set and arrested a 64-year-old resident four days later.
The official fire-department account starts at about 10:29 p.m. July 21, when crews were sent to the 1200 block of Aster Drive in Glen Burnie. Firefighters quickly extinguished the blaze, according to the county. Investigators from the Fire/Arson & Explosives Investigative Bureau then examined the incident and determined that Carmelo Latorre intentionally set the fire, the department said. Latorre was arrested July 25 and charged with attempted first- and second-degree murder and first- and second-degree arson. The county described the investigation as active. Its release did not identify a motive, estimate the loss to the property or say whether investigators believed anyone besides the woman and pets was endangered inside the residence. Those points remain separate from the department’s narrower conclusion that the fire was deliberately set.
That public announcement gives the case its basic framework but not the circumstances inside the house. Those details appear in charging documents cited by WMAR and CBS Baltimore. According to those reports, Latorre’s girlfriend told investigators he returned home intoxicated on the night of the fire, damaged property and threatened her. She alleged that he threw dog feces at her and threatened to force her to eat her deceased son’s ashes. Her name was redacted from the charging papers cited by WMAR, and the available official release does not identify her.
The woman also recorded part of the confrontation on her cellphone, the reports say. Investigators described the recording as capturing threats to burn the house and kill her. CBS reported one statement as, “You’re going to die in this house.” WMAR reported that Latorre was heard threatening to burn the house to the ground. The full recording has not been made available in the sources reviewed for this report, so the duration, complete wording and surrounding context are not publicly established here. The reported excerpts nevertheless form a key part of the charging-document account of what happened before the fire.
The next step in that account is the alleged ignition. Charging documents described by local outlets accuse Latorre of placing combustible material on or near the kitchen stove and setting it alight before leaving. His girlfriend and pets were still inside, according to CBS. WMAR reported that the woman has limited mobility. She called 911 and escaped the house, and the available reports do not identify any injuries to her. The county’s release does not provide a damage estimate, describe the condition of the pets or say whether anyone else was in the residence when the fire started.
For fire investigators, the case involved more than responding crews extinguishing flames. Anne Arundel County says members of its Fire/Arson & Explosives Investigative Bureau are sworn law-enforcement officers with specialized training in origin-and-cause investigations. In this instance, the bureau’s conclusion that the blaze was intentionally set was the official finding that moved the matter from an emergency response into a criminal case. The public statement does not detail the forensic basis for that conclusion, and it does not specify which scene findings were used to connect Latorre to the ignition. Those evidentiary details may be contained in investigative or court records not included in the release. The agency also did not say whether laboratory testing was required, whether accelerants were detected or whether the kitchen appliance itself was seized. Without those records, it would be speculative to describe a forensic method beyond the county’s stated intentional-fire determination.
Local reporting indicates that the criminal case includes more counts than the four listed in the fire department’s short announcement. WMAR reported that Latorre also faced malicious burning, a threat of arson, assault and reckless endangerment. CBS likewise reported assault and reckless-endangerment charges. The differences do not necessarily conflict: an agency release can summarize principal charges while court documents contain a fuller list. But the distinction matters when describing what has been officially announced by the department and what has been reported from charging papers. Latorre is accused of the offenses and has not been convicted.
The fire also affected people beyond the occupants of the house. CBS Baltimore interviewed a neighbor identified as Bienvenue, who said he saw flames coming from the roof while crews were at the scene. He said he was surprised by the later arrest and worried about the possibility that the fire could have spread to neighboring homes. The county said firefighters brought the blaze under control quickly. No secondary structure fire was reported in the sources reviewed, and the public release does not provide a wider damage assessment for the block. The neighbor’s account therefore supplies the clearest public description of how the fire looked from outside, while the official statement supplies the response time and investigative finding.
The verified timeline also resolves a discrepancy in early coverage. The Anne Arundel County Fire Department says its crews responded at approximately 10:29 p.m. July 21. CBS, WMAR and WBAL all described a Tuesday-night fire. A Law&Crime account later cited the county release but included a different response time in one passage. Because the county is the primary source for dispatch information, the 10:29 p.m. figure is the stronger record. The arrest occurred July 25, meaning investigators had several days between the fire and taking Latorre into custody. The county did not describe those intervening steps in its public release, so the chronology should not be expanded beyond what the agency and charging-document reports actually establish.
The sources reviewed do not explain every investigative step during those four days. They do not say when the woman turned over the cellphone video, when investigators first classified the fire as intentional, whether Latorre was interviewed before his arrest, or whether a search warrant was used to collect evidence from the home. They also do not provide a statement from a defense attorney. None of those unanswered questions should be filled with assumption. What is established publicly is that county fire investigators announced an intentional-fire finding and an arrest after their investigation.
Late-July news reports said Latorre was being held without bond. Law&Crime reported a court date had been set for Aug. 18, but the sources reviewed for this report do not confirm the result of that proceeding or a subsequent custody decision. No plea, trial date, conviction or dismissal was established in the available material. The county’s last public statement described the case as active and sought information from anyone who might assist investigators. That continuing request suggests investigators were still willing to receive evidence after the arrest, although the department did not specify what additional information it was seeking.
The case now has two separate tracks in the public record: an origin-and-cause determination by fire investigators and a criminal prosecution built on allegations that include the recorded threats and the circumstances of the woman’s escape. The fire department’s finding that the blaze was deliberate is an investigative conclusion; whether Latorre committed the charged crimes is a question for the court. Until that process develops further, the most detailed narrative remains the charging-document account reported by local news organizations.
Author note: Last updated August 29, 2026.