I am glad you think so highly of our judicial system, I would bet based on experience out there many people agree with you. What you read was a bench approved jury instruction that was agreed upon in 1986 with the words structural engineer being replaced by fire investigator. This came from a paper presented by a structural engineer.

The statement was used by Dr. Joshua Kardon in his presentation at the Online Ethics Center 1999 International Conference on Ethics in Engineering and Computer Science. I understand he might not be up to some of our standards but he is a structural engineer that has been in continuous practice since 1973 and established Joshua B. Kardon + Company in 1978. He has the following degrees, B.S., Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 1971, M.S., Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1997, and a Ph.D., Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2003. The fact that a professional like this used that information and the fact that it is considered to be a bunch approved jury instruction would really make me hesitate to call it voodoo.

Gerald your statement, “The idea of setting a criterion based on what local "reputable" investigators do is a bit scary,” surprises me a little. Is this not what you and others are saying when it comes to determining a standard of care for our profession. Is not the idea that a criterion (standard) for accepting 921 as the standard of care for fire investigators being put forth by “reputable” investigators? Should the rest of us consider that scary?

For once I was starting to kind of agree with the thought process of how one is determined a standard of care for a profession and you insinuate it is like voodoo. Of all people, because of where I live, I am familiar with voodoo. Believe me I respect voodoo more and you know. You are almost right about the shaman (spiritualist, medium, sage). Here it is the high priestess that sets the standard of care for voodoo.