This is my opinion only for all it is worth, and that may not be much. The process of elimination is used with the linear step scientific method that is shown in NFPA 921. Is it not true that once you form you hypothesis you start the testing process. If your testing shows the hypothesis is false then you go back and develop another hypothesis. You then do the testing process again. This process continues until you get to the point where there is only one hypothesis that cannot be proven to be false. Is this not a process of elimination?

This process is used in all problem-solving methods. One will always have more than one possibility as to the cause of a fire. The process of elimination is what is used to determine what hypothesis is false and which one is not.

The last standing hypothesis is the correct one if it cannot be proven to be false. This is exactly what 921 calls for when it tell the user to repeat the steps if the hypothesis is proven to be false.

I think one will have multiple hypotheses when starting an investigation. I know we start the investigation with no predetermined idea as to how the fire originated. There is a good chance one will not form only one hypothesis after evaluating the original data that is collected. There will be a good chance of having multiple hypotheses at this point. Now through a process of elimination you will test each in an attempt to prove it to be false. When you are finished there should be only one. There is a possibility that all one's hypotheses will be proven to be false.

Yes, the lack of physical evidence can be sufficient evidence to eliminate a hypothesis. The fact you do not find parts of a airplane in the burning building would be sufficient evidence to say the hypothesis of a airplane hitting the structure and causing the fire has been eliminate.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group