I apologize if my wording was not understandable to you. I am not an expert at this but I think my meaning got across to most of those reading the post. Do me and the rest of us poor stupid investigator a favor so we can learn from your vast knowledge on the subject and give us the cases were in the court’s ruling they has said the words that they believe 921 is the standard of care for fire investigation. Now you have suggested that courts have given that opinion, haven’t you.

I forgot, when it comes to you, I need to add a little more explanation than for most because of you technical background. By saying the first finding of a court decision I was saying the first decision I found. Sorry if that was confusing to you but I would bet most people got the point. It also stated that the courts said there was nothing before the court to suggest NFPA 921 was exhaustive or exclusive. Now they had the document before then but evidently that was not sufficient. They went on to say, it is not readily apparent that a failure to strictly adhere to all NFPA guidelines renders an investigation incomplete or unreliable. Can you understand what they are saying? I believe it is completely opposite your opinion. And the last think was they allowed the testimony of this expert, which is the document were the standard of care how could they.

In the second example the court stated, the plaintiffs suggested that because the report of the company’s expert did not contain evidence that he used the methodology set forth in NFPA 921, his opinions were therefore unreliable. The court disagreed and allowed the investigator to testify.

In the third case the court stated, while XXXXX may not have complied to the letter with the NFPA recommendations in conducting his cause and origin investigation, he still employed, in this Court's view, the requisite level of "intellectual rigor" that is demanded of experts in the field of fire cause and origin investigations. The Court accordingly concludes that XXXXXX proffered testimony relating to the cause and origin of the fire is reliable and satisfies the first part of the Rule 702/Daubert test.

I do not know how this can be clearer to the reader.

I remember you insinuating that an investigator owed a duty to a person that was not his client and because a person did not follow 921 exactly as to how you thought it should have been he was should be made to pay damages to that person. I believe this is another court that disagreed by saying there was no duty owed. Funny how the courts follow the law.

My effort is to accurately inform the readers. I would expect the most who read and post have their own opinion and I respect those opinions. I try to keep the discussion on a technical level and not personal. I said before that I did not believe I was completely right or completely wrong on this subject and felt the same about your opinion.

I thought this board was about the exchange of opinions of subjects involving fire investigation. I do not want someone to take what I say as fact but to do their own independent research and come up with their own answer even if it differs from mine, can you accept that way of thinking? Yes, over the last couple of subjects I have made a large number of posts with information I believed was useful to the readers. If you would reply with information that states this is your opinion I have not problem, but like most investigator or person because of your tone I ask what makes you more holy than thou.

All I have said at any time that there is a different point of view on these topics and the persons reading these posting should have the right to these alternate opinions. As to me being a minority on the board with my postings so be it but if you were to get the feeling of most fire investigators on these subjects I believe I am not that far off being within the norm. Can I ask why you do not want opposing thoughts disseminated?