These numbers, such as they are, surprise me not at all. Despite what many believe, a criminal defendant is guilty until proven innocent.

Despite all the hand-wringing about evidence being excluded by Daubert, the fact is that judges are afraid to exclude evidence in criminal cases for fear of appearing to be "soft on crime." The fear of a Daubert challenge does have a salutory effect, but the "gatekeepers" in such cases are the prosecutors, not the judges.

Just look at the record of Daubert challenges and exclusions. All of the exclusions I have seen in fire cases have been in civil cases. No matter what kind of bad science the state wants to show the jury, the judge lets it in. "Pour patterns" in fully involved rooms with no lab confirmation? No problem. "Multiple points of origin" that happened to burn together in a fully involved room? No problem.

This legal environment should serve to make all of the fine public servants who investigate fires very cautious. Their determination is frequently the last one one prior to final adjudication. When it comes to fire investigation, except (sometimes) in the most egregious cases, our judicial system in incapable of distinguishing fact from fantasy.

I wish you all a happy and safe Independence day.

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]