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: 921 Proposal Regarding Evidence of Electrical Arcing
Posted by: John J. Lentini, CFEI (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2007 01:22PM
George:
Just so you know, even photographs submitted by committee members have been rejected because, even though the artifact shown may have been properly interpreted, the environment in which it was produced was not known well enough to withstand an attack from someone who wanted to prove that the document is wrong. And trust me, there is still a large cadre of folks who would like nothng better than to see the document discredited, so they can go back to their more "traditional" methods.
We do not require that somneone witness the actual artifact being created, but it should be known, for instance, that there were no ignitable liquids present on the floor in the fire that produced the pattern shown as Figure 6.17.8.2.3(a) .
We got in a really nice set of photos last edition of electrical artifacts from real world fires, and decided that they had to be rejected.
The solution, of course, it to have more test fires, and get good photos from them.
One more thing: "The reasoning does not seem to be valid" may be more persuasive to the committee than "seems to be crap."
John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]
Just so you know, even photographs submitted by committee members have been rejected because, even though the artifact shown may have been properly interpreted, the environment in which it was produced was not known well enough to withstand an attack from someone who wanted to prove that the document is wrong. And trust me, there is still a large cadre of folks who would like nothng better than to see the document discredited, so they can go back to their more "traditional" methods.
We do not require that somneone witness the actual artifact being created, but it should be known, for instance, that there were no ignitable liquids present on the floor in the fire that produced the pattern shown as Figure 6.17.8.2.3(a) .
We got in a really nice set of photos last edition of electrical artifacts from real world fires, and decided that they had to be rejected.
The solution, of course, it to have more test fires, and get good photos from them.
One more thing: "The reasoning does not seem to be valid" may be more persuasive to the committee than "seems to be crap."
John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.