Denny

Could you tell me the reasoning behind why would our profession want to call for the level of certainty to be greater for determining the origin than it does the cause? In the origin sections it states, “It is important that a single point of origin not be made unless evidence is conclusive.” With this in mine, are willing to accept the cause determination with a lesser degree of certainty?

You are saying that the requirements for reaching a determination as to the cause of a fire are less in 921 than what may be called for in a criminal or civil cause. The reason I am saying civil is that the cause of the fire, in a civil arson case in Louisiana, must be beyond any other reasonable hypothesis.

I believe there is a direct relationship between “levels of certainty" for a conclusion and the term "burdens of proof". First of all, burden of proof is the obligation to prove the allegations, where the standard of proof is the level of proof needed to prove the allegations. I think you will agree there are a number of different levels of standards of proof. There is in most countries two levels of proof: the balance of probabilities (BOP), called the preponderance of evidence in the US, beyond a reasonable doubt or just beyond reasonable doubt. In the United States there is a third standard called clear and convincing evidence. Each one of these requires a different level of certainty to support that standard.

The term probable is defined in 921 almost exactly as is the preponderance of evidence is defined under a type of burden of proof. A "preponderance of evidence", is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50% chance that the proposition is true.

It seems to me the lesser of the levels has been chosen. Am I wrong?