At one point the author discusses how the baby monitor was ruled out as the source of the fire, because when it was opened there were no signs of a fire on the inside.
Yet the receptacle is being blamed, when it also does not have any signs of a fire internal to its box/enclosure.
Jim, there is quite a "disconnect" that happens in the authors' language about the receptacle and box/enclosure.
The author(s) claim there is a clear violation of the NEC in what they show, but to my eye, I am not shown that violation in Photo 2. The author(s) claim that the NEC requires a "wire" for a ground connection is, simply, the author making up his own
Code.
Now, following on Don's paraphrase of the author's email response about "testing". . . if continuity, and / or polarity, testing resulting in an electrical lack of continuity in the Equipment Grounding Conductor back to the Main Bonding Jumper in the Electrical Service Disconnect did, in fact, exist, that should be stated, AND, the forensic examination continued to reveal the point, or points, of dis-continuity. It may be as simple as showing the lack of an auto-ground feature in the receptacle device.
We can't know, because the "proof" offered is not proof at all, and the rest of the article does not include any information to support the conclusion of the authors.