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: Cause of the Fire
Posted by: Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2006 11:15AM
Jim
I appreciate your input into this topic and I always learn something when hearing a different point of view to a technical subject as like this one. I understand the relationship you addressed between the jury as the finder of fact and the expert’s testimony as his or her assessment of probability and that there is a difference between the levels of proof need for different types of court proceedings. What my concern was in my original post is not that NFPA 921 or any other document set a standard for a level of certainty to meet that required by the court but that we have a consistent level for all aspects of the investigation. I believe when a profession demonstrates a consistency in the methodology it is using, it gives a better representation of the professionalism practiced within that industry.
As a professional doing business in a profession that has a direct influence on the lives of those individuals we touch, it is important to me to strive for the highest standard possible, even if that standard is greater than the requirement of the courts. When I was hearing the opposing expert information, as to what was his level of certainty as to the conclusion he reached as to the cause of the fire I wondered to myself if we as a profession are not setting the bar too low. The problem starts with the rationalization between the different levels of certainty NFPA 921 was requiring for the determination of the origin and the determination of the cause. If we believe the level of certainty for establishing the origin needs to be conclusion, why are we reducing the level to probable for the cause? My posting was to obtain other viewpoints on the subject and I believe each posting was very good in the thoughts on the subject. The conclusion I reached, based on the comment was posted in answer to my original posting is that this topic is more difficult to address because of the wide range of views.
Knowing the members on the 921 committee and that a number of these members understood the importance of this topic to add postings of their own with comments, leads me to believe this subject will be discussed at their next meeting. This may lead to a change in the wording used in the document or some other type of clarification but the intent is strictly for the use in our profession and is not meant to mirror the legal standings and requirements.
Again, thank you for taking the time in sharing your thoughts on the subject.
Jim Mazerat
I appreciate your input into this topic and I always learn something when hearing a different point of view to a technical subject as like this one. I understand the relationship you addressed between the jury as the finder of fact and the expert’s testimony as his or her assessment of probability and that there is a difference between the levels of proof need for different types of court proceedings. What my concern was in my original post is not that NFPA 921 or any other document set a standard for a level of certainty to meet that required by the court but that we have a consistent level for all aspects of the investigation. I believe when a profession demonstrates a consistency in the methodology it is using, it gives a better representation of the professionalism practiced within that industry.
As a professional doing business in a profession that has a direct influence on the lives of those individuals we touch, it is important to me to strive for the highest standard possible, even if that standard is greater than the requirement of the courts. When I was hearing the opposing expert information, as to what was his level of certainty as to the conclusion he reached as to the cause of the fire I wondered to myself if we as a profession are not setting the bar too low. The problem starts with the rationalization between the different levels of certainty NFPA 921 was requiring for the determination of the origin and the determination of the cause. If we believe the level of certainty for establishing the origin needs to be conclusion, why are we reducing the level to probable for the cause? My posting was to obtain other viewpoints on the subject and I believe each posting was very good in the thoughts on the subject. The conclusion I reached, based on the comment was posted in answer to my original posting is that this topic is more difficult to address because of the wide range of views.
Knowing the members on the 921 committee and that a number of these members understood the importance of this topic to add postings of their own with comments, leads me to believe this subject will be discussed at their next meeting. This may lead to a change in the wording used in the document or some other type of clarification but the intent is strictly for the use in our profession and is not meant to mirror the legal standings and requirements.
Again, thank you for taking the time in sharing your thoughts on the subject.
Jim Mazerat
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.