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: Kristine Bunch
Posted by: PMK140 (IP Logged)
Date: August 13, 2012 06:20PM
Doug,
No one doubts that CO and toxic products of combustion are major considerations. No one doubts your and Jaimie's knowledge and intelligence. But, there is no peer-reviewed research which has been published to support your theory that blood gas species of a fire victim can be used to determine the origin, cause, or development of a fire.
You and your group are the only self-appointed authorities. You and your group are the only ones teaching this theory. You and your group are the only ones profering such testimony (with mixed results).
The fact that you and your group have been lecturing on this topic to various fire investigation groups is definitely not a viable argument that it is accurate, or usable. "This is a provable valid method of fire investigation because we have been lecturing about it" is simply a circumlocutious, self-serving, ipsi dixit argument.
You and your group have been proffering this theory upon the fire investigation community, and actually putting it forward in testimony for many years now, but no one else. Your explaination for this is "Nobody else is smart enough to nderstand it.
None of the 40 references you site say anything about the use of blood gas species analysis in origin or cause determination. They are “Red Herring.”
The facts remain. This is not a peer-reviewed generally accepted methodology for origin and cause determination. There has been no peer reviewed research to show that this theory is nothing more that speculation. Quite similar to Larry Arnold’ s palming off Spontaneous Human Combustion or the use of Auger Electron Spectroscopy for determining whether an arc bead was the cause of result of a fire.
It has not been empirically tested, is falsifiable, refutable, or testable.
Therefore, it should not be defensible in a Daubert Challenge.
By the way, calling everyone who disagrees with your unproven theory not smart or educated enough understand is the same arguments that were used for the proof of cold fusion and the efficacy of “Snake Oil,” and beneath you.
Pat Kennedy, CFEI, CFPS, MIFireE
Fire and Explosion Analyst
Sarasota, Florida
[www.kennedy-fire.com]
No one doubts that CO and toxic products of combustion are major considerations. No one doubts your and Jaimie's knowledge and intelligence. But, there is no peer-reviewed research which has been published to support your theory that blood gas species of a fire victim can be used to determine the origin, cause, or development of a fire.
You and your group are the only self-appointed authorities. You and your group are the only ones teaching this theory. You and your group are the only ones profering such testimony (with mixed results).
The fact that you and your group have been lecturing on this topic to various fire investigation groups is definitely not a viable argument that it is accurate, or usable. "This is a provable valid method of fire investigation because we have been lecturing about it" is simply a circumlocutious, self-serving, ipsi dixit argument.
You and your group have been proffering this theory upon the fire investigation community, and actually putting it forward in testimony for many years now, but no one else. Your explaination for this is "Nobody else is smart enough to nderstand it.
None of the 40 references you site say anything about the use of blood gas species analysis in origin or cause determination. They are “Red Herring.”
The facts remain. This is not a peer-reviewed generally accepted methodology for origin and cause determination. There has been no peer reviewed research to show that this theory is nothing more that speculation. Quite similar to Larry Arnold’ s palming off Spontaneous Human Combustion or the use of Auger Electron Spectroscopy for determining whether an arc bead was the cause of result of a fire.
It has not been empirically tested, is falsifiable, refutable, or testable.
Therefore, it should not be defensible in a Daubert Challenge.
By the way, calling everyone who disagrees with your unproven theory not smart or educated enough understand is the same arguments that were used for the proof of cold fusion and the efficacy of “Snake Oil,” and beneath you.
Pat Kennedy, CFEI, CFPS, MIFireE
Fire and Explosion Analyst
Sarasota, Florida
[www.kennedy-fire.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.