Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Back to basics – testing your hypothesis.
Posted by: cda (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2007 09:54AM
I am comfortable with my fire calls. I have been replying to the original post ad trying to learn from it.
In nfpa 921 2004 4.3.6 seems to indicate that you can use cognitive or deductive reasoning.
So if gasoline is found at the seen and the suspect tells somone else I burned the place using gasoline, it seems like case closed. PErson in jail.
If on an accidental fire the stove top is burned up and the cabinets above it have heavy damage and the person said I put something on the stove before I went to sleep. Than the call is unattended cooking.
I do not feel I have put anyone in jail that should not be there and try very hard before submitting a case to assure that the right person is going to jail.
In nfpa 921 2004 4.3.6 seems to indicate that you can use cognitive or deductive reasoning.
So if gasoline is found at the seen and the suspect tells somone else I burned the place using gasoline, it seems like case closed. PErson in jail.
If on an accidental fire the stove top is burned up and the cabinets above it have heavy damage and the person said I put something on the stove before I went to sleep. Than the call is unattended cooking.
I do not feel I have put anyone in jail that should not be there and try very hard before submitting a case to assure that the right person is going to jail.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.