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: Acceptable Level of Certainty
Posted by: John J. Lentini, CFEI (IP Logged)
Date: February 16, 2007 02:48PM
Jim:
The Committee has struggled with this issue since the first edition. The 1992 edition listed 4 levels of certainty: “conclusive,” “probable,” “possible” and “suspected.” The interpretation of this section became immediately problematic.
“Conclusive” was equated with “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Probable was equated with “to a preponderance of the evidence. Levels of certainty (what some folks call a “comfort level”) became equated with burdens of proof.
The result was that some investigators would say that based on the data available they would not call a fire arson in a criminal trial, but in a civil trial they would. I’m not talking about 2 guys looking at the same evidence and reaching different conclusions; I’ talking about one guy making two determinations from the same data, depending on who was asking the question.
That was not the Committee’s intent, so A TIA was issued stating “Do not confuse levels of certainty with burdens of proof.” But the misinterpretation/confusion persisted.
So, in 1998, the section was excised, on the suggestion of a lawyer who wondered where “clear and convincing” fit into the scheme. A proposal to put it back was rejected in 2001, but in 2004, the terms “probable” and “possible,” the only two that have any real legal meaning, were put back in.
In the 2008 cycle, more proposals on the section were submitted, and the Committee sidestepped the issue. So the issue is still open, and the Committee would love to receive the solution in the form of a comment.
If you, James Mazerat, know what words should be in NFPA 921 (real text, not “something like…”) please send in your comment before the deadline, or send it to me and I will submit it.
The Committee understands the dilemma. (Disclaimer: I am expressing my opinion of where I think the Committee is on this subject, but I do not speak for the Committee). We will try to work it through. But if you don’t send in a comment, then I don’t expect to hear any bellyaching about the Committee’s action. In the immortal words of Pat Paulsen, “Vote or get off the pot!”
John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]
The Committee has struggled with this issue since the first edition. The 1992 edition listed 4 levels of certainty: “conclusive,” “probable,” “possible” and “suspected.” The interpretation of this section became immediately problematic.
“Conclusive” was equated with “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Probable was equated with “to a preponderance of the evidence. Levels of certainty (what some folks call a “comfort level”) became equated with burdens of proof.
The result was that some investigators would say that based on the data available they would not call a fire arson in a criminal trial, but in a civil trial they would. I’m not talking about 2 guys looking at the same evidence and reaching different conclusions; I’ talking about one guy making two determinations from the same data, depending on who was asking the question.
That was not the Committee’s intent, so A TIA was issued stating “Do not confuse levels of certainty with burdens of proof.” But the misinterpretation/confusion persisted.
So, in 1998, the section was excised, on the suggestion of a lawyer who wondered where “clear and convincing” fit into the scheme. A proposal to put it back was rejected in 2001, but in 2004, the terms “probable” and “possible,” the only two that have any real legal meaning, were put back in.
In the 2008 cycle, more proposals on the section were submitted, and the Committee sidestepped the issue. So the issue is still open, and the Committee would love to receive the solution in the form of a comment.
If you, James Mazerat, know what words should be in NFPA 921 (real text, not “something like…”) please send in your comment before the deadline, or send it to me and I will submit it.
The Committee understands the dilemma. (Disclaimer: I am expressing my opinion of where I think the Committee is on this subject, but I do not speak for the Committee). We will try to work it through. But if you don’t send in a comment, then I don’t expect to hear any bellyaching about the Committee’s action. In the immortal words of Pat Paulsen, “Vote or get off the pot!”
John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.