John:

If I am wrong, it will not be the first time in my life I was wrong. I believe where you and me differ on the subject is I see in the court’s wording they are embracing the scientific method as it is outline in the document but not the complete document. I have no problem with the scientific method for solving problems.

What I am trying to do in these posting is suggest a compromise between the different labels that are being attached to the document. I though Steve had a good suggestion and I tried to expand on it but it seems to have been rejected.

People have been out to get this document recognized as a standard and not a Guide since it was first published. The first was to say it was listed on the rear cover under the word standards published by the NFPA so there by it is really a standard. I believe it was the Georgia fire marshal that addressed this with NFPA and the wording was changed. Then we had those saying it was part of the National Fire Code so this inferred it was a standard. That seems to have fallen by the wayside. Now we are asked to believe all these courts have made it mandatory so thereby we should accepted as such. We all know this is not exactly correct in that the courts for the most part are addressing the methodology to be used when conduction an investigation.

When you suggest that those who deviate from 921 testimony is excluded is not correct in all cases, is it? Let’s be straight forward on this issue. Some testimony has not been allowed where other testimony has. I think the courts are still trying to understand Daubert and that is why we are getting ruling all over the place.

I believe 921 should remain a technical document to assist investigators and not mandate to them how the job is to be done.