I get that. What I was trying to say is that the odor from the fire might have masked the odor from the dead body.
But hey -- what do I know? I'm just trying to say there may have been a logical explanation as to why the investigators did not find the body right away. Would not want them to be maligned as incompetent if there is a good reason why the body wasn't discovered immediately
But the body was found, he can now be buried and his loved ones, if he had any, can find peace. And the *bleep* who set the blaze can be suitably punished, I hope.
If the fire was smoldering, if the area was avoided, if the body had not reached a sufficient level of decomposition, yes, the smoke and stink of the structural fire could have masked the smell of cooked meat, and later, initial decay.
It isn't incompetence, necessarily, and I did not mean to say that, but a lot of other things for investigators to do with 1000 burned out buildings, and the possible presumption everyone had gotten out. Examination of the remains may yet reveal that the person was deceased before the fire as a result of defending against a robbery, which is a possibility, too.
Yes, it is good that someone who was missing is accounted for and that loved ones and friends might find closure. The arsonist might not have been the killer, though, and may only be subject to additional charges of desecrating human remains, destruction of evidence, or something similar.