I wish I was making this up, but these are excerpts of a July 20, 2018 deposition of a "Forensic Engineer".

I for one was completely unaware that among an extensive list of other things, that "...the jury is still out in terms of the NFPA 921..."



"9 Q As a committee member of at least the

10 electrical section of the NFPA, are you familiar with the

11 NFPA921?

12 A That is a different code. This the NFPA

13 national electrical code is 70."


"20 Q Okay. So going back to my question, would you

21 consider the NFPA921 authoritative in the field of fire

22 investigations?

23 A I don't know what you mean by authoritative to

24 me like a mechanical engineers handbook is a standard

25 book. This is to me a reference book if that's what

1 you're asking by authoritative you know like a reference

2 book, people can -- people wanting to do stuff, etcetera,

3 they can look at it and learn to do it and the new

4 beginners can learn to do it. So in that sense, it's a

5 good book.

6 Q Would you consider then using slightly

7 different verbiage, would you consider the NFPA921 to set

8 forth the standard of care in the industry of fire

9 investigations?

10 A I don't know. I mean, as I said, I don't use

11 it. I don't -- you know, that's not -- it doesn't talk

12 about forensic engineering of incidents evaluation. It's

13 more for scene -- fire scene investigations. In that

14 sense it may be, but as I said, I don't do origin and

15 cause.

16 Q So you do not use the NFPA921?

17 A I'm familiar with it but my standard and level

18 is much higher than -- as an engineer, that's known as

19 applied science. Engineering is applied science. So

20 NFPA for example 921 says oh, you should use science and

21 engineering. I've been doing that before the NFPA

22 started. So that's what I'm saying. I know NFPA and I

23 know the committee members is now, the new members as

24 well as the original members that started in the 90s, and

25 I interact with them all the time. Yes. But not because

1 of 921, because in work related stuff, I -- we cross each

2 other. Sometimes I work with them at, you know, the

3 board members expert for engineering type of analysis,

4 and sometimes -- you know, so I interact with them. I

5 talk to them.

6 Q In forming your opinions in this case, did you

7 rely at all on the NFPA921?

8 A I'm not sure I understand relying. I performed

9 analysis using the -- by applying science and engineering

10 and I mean that's what it says. Although it is not

11 really correct, and the jury is still out in terms of the

12 NFPA921 and that was actually a recommendation made by

13 the American association for the advancement of science

14 and national academy of forensic science -- scientists.

15 Not NAFE, but a different group, made a recommendation to

16 the department of justice."


" 24 Q So in forming your analysis and forming your

25 opinions in this case, did you utilize the standards as

1 set forth in the NFPA921.

2 A It doesn't apply. I'm trying to explain. I'm

3 beyond that. It is not a standard, it's just a document

4 that says apply science and engineering and provides the

5 tools and so on a person should use, and I've been using

6 that even before the beginning of 921. ..."

15 {Name Omitted}: I'm going to mark as Exhibit 5 a

16 document entitled at the top E1188-11. Take a look at

17 that and my question is going to be whether you've seen

18 that before.

19 A Yes I've seen this before.

20 Q And what is it?

21 A It's a document that provides guidelines for

22 collecting, preserving information and physical items.

23 Q This is a guideline much like the NFPA921, or

24 does it set forth different standards?

25 A It's a guideline, you know, it's a standard I

1 mean, it's a standard way of doing things. It's a

2 suggested standard way, it's not the law, I guess. ..."