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: Who peer reviewed this?
Posted by: John J. Lentini, CFEI (IP Logged)
Date: March 14, 2007 09:26PM
You are correct Dave. Maybe it's time that some of this witness's more unusual testimony be made more public. How about an HTA fire? Anyone seen one of those recently?
Here are excerpts from a deposition (I will be happy to provide the entire transcript to anyone who asks) wherein the witness “reluctantly” concludes that he is seeing evidence of a High Temperature Accelerant (HTA) fire. His basis for making this conclusion was a brilliant flare seen in a photo taken at least an hour after the fire’s discovery. He opined that there were at least five 50 pound HTA charges that resulted in flares like the one in the photo, but they went undetected. (The jury did not buy the “hypothesis.”)
The case cite is STARK COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, )
vs. RAILWAY PROPERTIES, LTD, et al., Defendants. No. 2003 CV 017379
The case was tried in February 2005.
11 Q By the time you received the aerial photos, had you
12 began to hypothesize that there was HTA involved?
13 A Reluctantly, yes.
14 Q Why reluctantly?
15 A Because of all of my previous contact with fires
16 involving high energy events, there was always another
17 explanation of a fuel source, a ventilation effect, something
18 like that, that was more likely to be the cause of an event
19 like that.
20 Q Well, as I understand it, by December 17th of 2001,
21 you hadn't even seen the fire marshall report, had you?
22 A No.
23 Q So how could you have had enough information to
24 hypothesize it was or wasn't an HTA fire?....
2 Q So in your 35 years of experience, this is the one
3 case in which you have given an opinion and want to proffer an
4 opinion to a jury, that an HTA was used, correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q What evidence do you have that there was an
7 exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth here?
8 A I don't.
9 Q What evidence do you have that there was a brilliant
10 flare at the start of the fire?
11 A I have the observations of the firefighters, in this
12 case, of an event, highly energetic event, occurring while
13 they were on site, and we have the photograph.
14 Q And that occurred more than an hour after they were
15 on site?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q So there's no observation at the start of the fire,
18 for brilliant flare, is there?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q Any observation of melted steel?
21 A There are sections of -- well, there are residues of
22 molten iron found on -- near or in samples from "B" and "D,"
23 that indicated extremely high temperature.
24 Q I'm talking about melted steel, not melted iron.
25 Any evidence of melted steel.
1 A No, not that I can recall.
2 Q Any evidence of melted concrete?
3 A No.
4 Q So the four indicators of HTA, that this 921 that you
5 generated and approved, of those four indicators, you don't
6 have any of them here, do you?
7 A That's correct....
12 Q My question was, What do you think somebody brought
13 into this building, and your answer was: I could do it this
14 way. I don't want to argue with you about semantics. I just
15 want you to try and listen to my question and answer the
16 question that I am asking.
20 Q What are you going tell the jury that you think an
21 arsonist brought into this building, in terms of volume?
22 A At least 50 pounds of fuel oxidizer mixture for each
23 location.
24 Q For each of these five areas?
25 A Yes.
Q At least 50 pounds?
2 A That's right.
3 Q In what form would that 50 pounds be?
4 A It would be a dry solid.
5 Q So it was something that they can bring in, in a bag
6 or a pack or a canvass? You know, what would the mechanism
7 be?
8 A It can be anything. It can be a cardboard --
9 cardboard box. It could be a plastic bucket. Anything that
10 will hold 50 pounds or more, of powder.
11 Q How do you come to the conclusion that at least 50
12 pounds of powder was used to ignite each one of these five
13 areas?
14 A Because of the tests that I've conducted, I know how
15 much heat I can generate from small and medium sized amounts
16 of similar material, and that's the basis for it.
17 Is there any guarantee that somebody did not use more?
18 A.No, there isn't.
19 Q Is it your belief that they could not have
20 accomplished this result using less?
21 A I'm sorry?
22 Q Less than 50 pounds per location?
23 A It would be highly unlikely.
24 Q So a person, or persons unknown, brought in a minimum
25 of 250 pounds of fuel, correct?
1 A Yes.
2 Q You have already told me, I believe, that you can't
3 tell me what they used to ignite it; is that correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Do you have an opinion, or do you intend to offer an
6 opinion, as to whether or not there was some mechanism used to
7 ignite it as opposed to an open flame, or whether they used
8 some mechanical device?
9 A No residues of a timing or delayed device would
10 survive this thermal exposure. And so there were no
11 identifiable residues of any such timing device found.
12 Q Would you expect there to be such a device?
13 A Would I expect the residues to be present?
14 Q If it was used?...
2 Q So would it be fair to say that you think four out of
3 five plumes here occurred, and there were flames going up 35
4 to 40 feet high and nobody saw them.
5 Is that what you believe?
6 A I don't know if they had to be 35 feet high, but,
7 yes, there were energetic plumes of some height, capable of
8 reaching at least a portion of the roof structure, which is, I
9 recall, started as low as 14 feet from the floor. But that's
10 correct, no one outside the building saw it.
11 Q And again, you think that the ignition happened at
12 earliest, an hour ahead -- before it was observed?
13 A Yes.
14 Q So is it your opinion that the arsonists or arsonist
15 set five charges, and maybe more, and then left the building;
16 and subsequently before the plumes ignited, one ignited later.
17 Is that your testimony?
18 A That's a likely scenario. However, there's no
19 guarantee that somebody had to be out of the building when the
20 devices function.
21 Q Is it your opinion that the arsonists or arsonist
22 could have ignited, say, Area A with the resulting plume, and
23 then gone around and ignited the other locations?
24 A Yes.
The chemical analysis upon which this witness relied found large quantities of calcium carbonate and small quantities of aluminum oxide. From this he hypothesized that the HTA mixture was calcium sulfate and metallic aluminum powder. No metallic aluminum was found, despite a diligent search (It must have all burned up.) Calcium carbonate is the major component (it makes up 25%) of wood ash. You have to admire a witness who can, with a straight face, find meaning in a finding of calcium carbonate.
This witness has many talents, including knowing how to derail an annoying line of cross examination. Here is another quote:
“If you really get tired of a particular line of cross-examination, you can sometimes offer a response that is truthful and responsive, but it’s just slightly off target. And you hope that the cross-examiner follows you down that particular line so you can saw it off behind him.”
The search for the truth continues.
John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]
Here are excerpts from a deposition (I will be happy to provide the entire transcript to anyone who asks) wherein the witness “reluctantly” concludes that he is seeing evidence of a High Temperature Accelerant (HTA) fire. His basis for making this conclusion was a brilliant flare seen in a photo taken at least an hour after the fire’s discovery. He opined that there were at least five 50 pound HTA charges that resulted in flares like the one in the photo, but they went undetected. (The jury did not buy the “hypothesis.”)
The case cite is STARK COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, )
vs. RAILWAY PROPERTIES, LTD, et al., Defendants. No. 2003 CV 017379
The case was tried in February 2005.
11 Q By the time you received the aerial photos, had you
12 began to hypothesize that there was HTA involved?
13 A Reluctantly, yes.
14 Q Why reluctantly?
15 A Because of all of my previous contact with fires
16 involving high energy events, there was always another
17 explanation of a fuel source, a ventilation effect, something
18 like that, that was more likely to be the cause of an event
19 like that.
20 Q Well, as I understand it, by December 17th of 2001,
21 you hadn't even seen the fire marshall report, had you?
22 A No.
23 Q So how could you have had enough information to
24 hypothesize it was or wasn't an HTA fire?....
2 Q So in your 35 years of experience, this is the one
3 case in which you have given an opinion and want to proffer an
4 opinion to a jury, that an HTA was used, correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q What evidence do you have that there was an
7 exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth here?
8 A I don't.
9 Q What evidence do you have that there was a brilliant
10 flare at the start of the fire?
11 A I have the observations of the firefighters, in this
12 case, of an event, highly energetic event, occurring while
13 they were on site, and we have the photograph.
14 Q And that occurred more than an hour after they were
15 on site?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q So there's no observation at the start of the fire,
18 for brilliant flare, is there?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q Any observation of melted steel?
21 A There are sections of -- well, there are residues of
22 molten iron found on -- near or in samples from "B" and "D,"
23 that indicated extremely high temperature.
24 Q I'm talking about melted steel, not melted iron.
25 Any evidence of melted steel.
1 A No, not that I can recall.
2 Q Any evidence of melted concrete?
3 A No.
4 Q So the four indicators of HTA, that this 921 that you
5 generated and approved, of those four indicators, you don't
6 have any of them here, do you?
7 A That's correct....
12 Q My question was, What do you think somebody brought
13 into this building, and your answer was: I could do it this
14 way. I don't want to argue with you about semantics. I just
15 want you to try and listen to my question and answer the
16 question that I am asking.
20 Q What are you going tell the jury that you think an
21 arsonist brought into this building, in terms of volume?
22 A At least 50 pounds of fuel oxidizer mixture for each
23 location.
24 Q For each of these five areas?
25 A Yes.
Q At least 50 pounds?
2 A That's right.
3 Q In what form would that 50 pounds be?
4 A It would be a dry solid.
5 Q So it was something that they can bring in, in a bag
6 or a pack or a canvass? You know, what would the mechanism
7 be?
8 A It can be anything. It can be a cardboard --
9 cardboard box. It could be a plastic bucket. Anything that
10 will hold 50 pounds or more, of powder.
11 Q How do you come to the conclusion that at least 50
12 pounds of powder was used to ignite each one of these five
13 areas?
14 A Because of the tests that I've conducted, I know how
15 much heat I can generate from small and medium sized amounts
16 of similar material, and that's the basis for it.
17 Is there any guarantee that somebody did not use more?
18 A.No, there isn't.
19 Q Is it your belief that they could not have
20 accomplished this result using less?
21 A I'm sorry?
22 Q Less than 50 pounds per location?
23 A It would be highly unlikely.
24 Q So a person, or persons unknown, brought in a minimum
25 of 250 pounds of fuel, correct?
1 A Yes.
2 Q You have already told me, I believe, that you can't
3 tell me what they used to ignite it; is that correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Do you have an opinion, or do you intend to offer an
6 opinion, as to whether or not there was some mechanism used to
7 ignite it as opposed to an open flame, or whether they used
8 some mechanical device?
9 A No residues of a timing or delayed device would
10 survive this thermal exposure. And so there were no
11 identifiable residues of any such timing device found.
12 Q Would you expect there to be such a device?
13 A Would I expect the residues to be present?
14 Q If it was used?...
2 Q So would it be fair to say that you think four out of
3 five plumes here occurred, and there were flames going up 35
4 to 40 feet high and nobody saw them.
5 Is that what you believe?
6 A I don't know if they had to be 35 feet high, but,
7 yes, there were energetic plumes of some height, capable of
8 reaching at least a portion of the roof structure, which is, I
9 recall, started as low as 14 feet from the floor. But that's
10 correct, no one outside the building saw it.
11 Q And again, you think that the ignition happened at
12 earliest, an hour ahead -- before it was observed?
13 A Yes.
14 Q So is it your opinion that the arsonists or arsonist
15 set five charges, and maybe more, and then left the building;
16 and subsequently before the plumes ignited, one ignited later.
17 Is that your testimony?
18 A That's a likely scenario. However, there's no
19 guarantee that somebody had to be out of the building when the
20 devices function.
21 Q Is it your opinion that the arsonists or arsonist
22 could have ignited, say, Area A with the resulting plume, and
23 then gone around and ignited the other locations?
24 A Yes.
The chemical analysis upon which this witness relied found large quantities of calcium carbonate and small quantities of aluminum oxide. From this he hypothesized that the HTA mixture was calcium sulfate and metallic aluminum powder. No metallic aluminum was found, despite a diligent search (It must have all burned up.) Calcium carbonate is the major component (it makes up 25%) of wood ash. You have to admire a witness who can, with a straight face, find meaning in a finding of calcium carbonate.
This witness has many talents, including knowing how to derail an annoying line of cross examination. Here is another quote:
“If you really get tired of a particular line of cross-examination, you can sometimes offer a response that is truthful and responsive, but it’s just slightly off target. And you hope that the cross-examiner follows you down that particular line so you can saw it off behind him.”
The search for the truth continues.
John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.