I, as an investigator have no problem in understanding your classification of “Accidental Undetermined”, there may be those that would serve on a jury that would think the two terms do not relate properly to each other and thereby place the person’s testimony into question. My question is this terminology, is our present method of classification outdated to the point it no longer can be made to fit the scenarios we are determining. In the beginning the terms accidental, intentional, natural, or undetermined were being used to classify the reason for ignition taking place. The elements needed to reach a conclusion as to the classification have changed in recent years.

Through the evolution of our profession the term intent was added as an additional factor that the investigator must consider before classifying the incident. At the same time that classificating the reason for the event is different for determining the cause of the fire. This would suggest one should not longer be classifying the cause for ignition but only the reason for the total event. The fire service’s reporting system addressed this problem by changing the classifications being used. The main ones are, Case Status, Availability of Material First Ignited, Suspected Motivation Factors, Apparent Group Involvement, and Incendiary Devices. They call these terms Factors Contributing to Ignition. Under these main topics are sub-topics which better explain specifically what took place.

Has fire investigation, through its use of science, reached a point to where simplicity in classification is not longer adequate? Do we need to do as the fire departments and upgrade our classification system to where it better addresses the information that we are attempting to convey to others?

As you have point out, there are situation where the terminology being used in classifying an event does accurately depict what took place but can be confusing to others. An accurate determination as to the cause of an incident may not fit into a simple one word classification. It is like attempting to put a size 9 foot in a size six shoe. This present classification system, instead of simplifying the explanation of what took place is actually making the explanation more confusing and less understandable. Sometimes the simplest way to explain your thoughts accurately is to say what took place in clear terms. What would be wrong with describing your office scenario saying that the fire originated in this area of the office with these items being possible sources of ignition but due to their damage a precise conclusion could not be reached as to which of these items were the source of heat causing ignition. There is video of the event that shows no one entered the building or office after it was secured. This information is probably in the report, or should be, and any attempt to describe what took place in one word does not work. To me this is one area where KISS means tell what took place and quit trying to do a one size fits all explanation.