Investigators have concluded that there is no evidence to indicate that a fire at a beachfront mansion in South Carolina belonging to a judge was the result of arson.

The home at Edisto Beach, owned by Circuit Judge Diane Goodstein, 69, and her former senator husband Arnold Goodstein, 81, was consumed by flames on October 4. Initially, it was thought that the incident might have been an arson attack.

However, on Monday, Mark Keel, Chief of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, stated that there is ‘no evidence to suggest that the fire was started deliberately.’

‘SLED agents have preliminarily found there is no evidence to support a pre-fire explosion,’ he added, according to the New York Post.

The fire in the four-bedroom, four-bathroom $1,155,200 home in Edisto, South Carolina, sent three of the judge’s family members to the hospital.

The former senator was forced to jump out from the first floor of the house to get to safety.

He reportedly sustained multiple broken bones in his hips, legs, and feet following the fall.

Goodstein’s son, Arnold Goodstein II, was also hospitalized.

The family was rescued by paramedics and emergency workers in kayaks, according to the St. Paul’s Fire District, the outlet reported.

South Carolina Chief Justice John Kittredge said in a message to FITSNews that the fire resulted from an ‘apparent explosion.’

‘Judge Goodstein was walking on the beach when the fire started. Her husband, Arnie, was in the house with children and perhaps grandchildren. The family had to escape by jumping from a window or balcony.’

‘Arnie’s injuries may have been the most serious, for he was airlifted to the hospital.’

Goodstein had reportedly been receiving death threats in the past few weeks, sources told the outlet.

‘She’s had multiple death threats over the years,’ one judge close to Goodstein said.

Just last month, she was involved in a controversial case determining whether voters’ personal information in South Carolina could be handed over to the government.

Goodstein issued a temporary restraining order in early September, stemming from a lawsuit challenging whether the South Carolina Election Commission can give voters’ data to the Department of Justice, The Gazette reported.

However, the order was later overturned after a six-page opinion from the Supreme Court took issue with Goodstein’s process in barring the state from complying.

Goodstein was criticized by the Supreme Court’s order, signed by all five justices, for failing to detail the type of damage that would be caused by the release of voters’ personal information.

Specifically, the information of Calhoun County voter Anne Crook, who filed the suit to fight the release of her information to the federal government.

Goodstein was also said to have failed to explain whether she believed the lawsuit was likely to succeed, which is required for a court to intervene, according to the order obtained by the Gazette.

The circuit court judge also instructed the Election Commission not to comply with the request for voter information until they had received notice of the lawsuit, which the court deemed a violation.