Doug:

You always come up with great ideas. Why does this not surprise me. I will try going that direction and will recommend it to others.

I know what you are saying about public input with documentation that does have scientific support. That is the best way without a doubt. I will tell you when I was on the committee it was a learning experience during the discussion process. I voted on a number of area as part of the consensus process because what was going in the document was better than nothing. I agree the document cannot become something that covers all that may be needed in an investigation. My only thought is what is in the document be as accurate as possible to the point there cannot be a misunderstanding because of the way something is written.

The public input on this topic is only because I have seen multiple individual, both fire investigators and engineers, misstate the information contained in the table. Where I am proposing the addition of added text there are other ways to prevent misunderstanding. Maybe rewording of the title of the Table.

Your comment about not needing a bigger document is on point. Yes, there will still need to be some additions made but I look at it the same way as I look at all the different areas of the Life Safety Code. I agree with you as to the well-educated issue. You could ask those around me, this is a topic I harp on a lot. As to having our work cut out for us is an understatement. I look at person’s cv to assess their training and then look at their reports and wonder is the person was sleeping during the classes. The saying is correct, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. That is how I feel about some of the investigators and engineers I meet.

Thanks for the suggestions and help on this topic.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group