You make it sound like the investigator has the intent of harming people before the investigation is started. Before the hurricane, I would have said I did not believe that was possible, but in the handling of some of the storm claims that question has been raised with good supporting documentation. To say it does not happen is not a supportable position for one to take considering the evidence. In that case I must agree with you to some degree, but we also must remember not to use to broad of a brush when attempting to identify these individuals.

I do not believe just the difference of opinion alone is sufficient evidence to prove intent against the investigator. There will always be differences of opinions when it comes to fire investigations because so much of fire investigation is based on the interpretation of observations. I agree that we all should strive to conduct the best investigation possible to attempt to prevent doing harm to others.

May I ask a question? I know you support 921 as the standard of care for fire investigations. What if an investigator is impeached and punished based on data contained in 921, and later that information is shown not to be correct? What if the person is found guilty based on information contained in the document that is years later found to be incorrect or questionable? What happens to the document? Is it taken off the publication list?

What I am going back to is if I can prove that a person opinion was in error and prevent this error from being carried forward, then that is a good conclusion. Now if I really was to prevent this error from taking place again, yes I can punish the investigator and make an enemy for life, or I can educate him or her to the point they understand their mistake. This way I get another person to carry the word to others that I would not have reached through the punishment method. I think positive re-enforcement will have a greater effect than negative re-enforcement.