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: Standard of Care Requirements for Fire Investigators
Posted by: PMK140 (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2007 11:17PM
Jim, What the hell cases are you taking about?
The first case, the second case, the third case? I gave no list of cases.
I never posted anything using the phrasiology "Benchmark" or "gold standard. You are making no sense.
In the last 500 or so posts on htis forum you authored over on third of them and I am yet to find many who agree with you.
Please give it a rest, or at least proof read your text.
The first two sentences of your last post are virtually incomprehensible.
"The first finding of a court decision was that NFPA 921was there was nothing before the court to suggest NFPA 921 was exhaustive or exclusive, thereby allowing an expert’s testimony unreliable. They went on to say that a failure to strictly adhere to all NFPA guidelines renders an investigation incomplete or unreliable."
Take some advice from an old friend. This "horse" has been beat to death.
As for me, I'm done.
Pat
Pat Kennedy, CFEI, CFPS, MIFireE
Fire and Explosion Analyst
Sarasota, Florida
[www.kennedy-fire.com]
The first case, the second case, the third case? I gave no list of cases.
I never posted anything using the phrasiology "Benchmark" or "gold standard. You are making no sense.
In the last 500 or so posts on htis forum you authored over on third of them and I am yet to find many who agree with you.
Please give it a rest, or at least proof read your text.
The first two sentences of your last post are virtually incomprehensible.
"The first finding of a court decision was that NFPA 921was there was nothing before the court to suggest NFPA 921 was exhaustive or exclusive, thereby allowing an expert’s testimony unreliable. They went on to say that a failure to strictly adhere to all NFPA guidelines renders an investigation incomplete or unreliable."
Take some advice from an old friend. This "horse" has been beat to death.
As for me, I'm done.
Pat
Pat Kennedy, CFEI, CFPS, MIFireE
Fire and Explosion Analyst
Sarasota, Florida
[www.kennedy-fire.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.