I do not know what method the judges used to reach their conclusion but I agree with their finding. The scientific method was never argued or mentioned as a methodology to be used. The investigator never got into the word game of scientific method or testing of his hypothesis but appears to have used common sense in explaining his method of investigating the fire. His simple explanation was sufficient to convince the judges on the appellate court he knew what he was talking about. The context of the challenge against him testifying was that he should not be allowed to testify as to the cause of the fire because he was not an electrical engineer and did not have an alterative design. They said by allowing him to testify that the fire started within the chair would infer that there was a defect within the chair. They contend he did not have the education or experience to make this determination. It also shows what happens when the individual stays within his level of expertise. By not attempting to identify the specific failure, this investigator was allowed to infer there was a problem within the unit that caused this fire.

What I was saying is that the court of appeals used common sense in determining the individual used a proper methodology for problem solving. They did not confine the methodology to one specific set of rules. What I thought was special about this ruling is that they stated this was an accepted and tested methodology. They said that through his description of the steps taken they believed he satisfied all the requirements to allow him to testify that the fire originated within the chair. The methodology used by this person satisfied the court’s interpretation of the Daubert. What I am saying is that it is not necessary to label everything to get it right.

I am not saying this individual’s conclusion on this fire was correct, but I am saying I agree with the courts ruling to allow him to testify based on how he reached his conclusion. I want to make sure I am not misrepresenting their decision so here is the location of the ruling.

[www.ca8.uscourts.gov]