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: Is 921 a Standard of Care?
Posted by: J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: November 17, 2016 08:42AM
I totally agree with you and that fire investigative community has looked at this document for over 20 years before really embracing it. Some still do not embrace it for what it is.
After all the discussions and changes made to the document I don't think anyone is following blindly. If one takes time to look they will find the scientific method has been around a long time before 921 was thought about. When we talk about this document and how the judge are using it, what we are talking about is them using the scientific method as it is outlined in the document. I did not see any judges taking specific parts of the document and saying the investigator must comply with those sections. All the coverts seem to be addressing the methodology. M
You are saying the same thing the courts are saying. They believe science should be the basis for all fire investigations. The courts are giving them a document that can be referred to when conducting their investigations. They have decided to use 921. By the courts telling us this is the methodology they expect to be used on all fire destinations and telling us this methodology can be found in 921, they are advising the investigator where to go and what to review so that his investigation will meet their criteria.
The days of calling it a guide and not understanding that it is now becoming the standard of care that will be used in judging one's investigation is over. The investigation community can embrace this idea or be pushed to the side. It is the choice of the investigator if they want to continue this career with the conditions being placed on it by the courts.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group
After all the discussions and changes made to the document I don't think anyone is following blindly. If one takes time to look they will find the scientific method has been around a long time before 921 was thought about. When we talk about this document and how the judge are using it, what we are talking about is them using the scientific method as it is outlined in the document. I did not see any judges taking specific parts of the document and saying the investigator must comply with those sections. All the coverts seem to be addressing the methodology. M
You are saying the same thing the courts are saying. They believe science should be the basis for all fire investigations. The courts are giving them a document that can be referred to when conducting their investigations. They have decided to use 921. By the courts telling us this is the methodology they expect to be used on all fire destinations and telling us this methodology can be found in 921, they are advising the investigator where to go and what to review so that his investigation will meet their criteria.
The days of calling it a guide and not understanding that it is now becoming the standard of care that will be used in judging one's investigation is over. The investigation community can embrace this idea or be pushed to the side. It is the choice of the investigator if they want to continue this career with the conditions being placed on it by the courts.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.