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: Cause of the Fire
Posted by:
dsmith (IP Logged)
Date: July 10, 2006 12:46PM
The answer relative to levels of certainty are the in the current edition (2004). I don't know what proposals have been submitted regarding this issue so I'm not sure what Pat was referring to.
Does this mean that in the present 921 the level of certainty, as to the cause of the fire, only needs to exceed 50%? YES
Would this meet the requirements of our criminal system, which requires beyond a reasonable doubt is more restrictive than the document? NO
You are confusing "levels of certainty" for a conclusion with "burdens of proof" for a crime. Levels of certainty are used all the time by researchers, scientists, engineers and "problem solvesrs" and are not the exclusive domain of the legal community.
This, by the way, was the exact same discussion haeard/had by the several times by the committee. They are not the same and cannot be interposed. I believe that you can detemine a fire cause to a probabilty and still have guilt beyond a resonable doubt. (Confusion between "reasonable doubt" and "no doubt" is another intereseting discussion). I wouldn't suggest that anything I'm telling you hear is any type of legal opinion. Whatever attorney you're working with would have to assit you in that area.
If the document suggests that we not identify a single point of origin without conclusive evidence then how can we identify the cause of a fire with the evidence not being conclusive. From what the person said he can have a cause with a rating of 50.01% and another one with 49.99%. TECHNICALLY, TRUE. Although, obviously, you would have to justify your opinion.
It was my understanding that according to the scientific method that one must test all hypothese and there can be only one that past the test based on all the data. If there are more than one hypothesis that pass the test then should we not be labeling the cause as undetermined? NOT TRUE. As I've explained previously. This is exactly why there are "levels of certainty (confidence).
Denny