Fire/Arson Investigations :  Fire/Arson Investigations The fastest message board... ever.
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: Indiana Arson/Homicide charges dropped
Posted by: John Lentini (IP Logged)
Date: January 15, 2019 01:57PM

Most chemists do not compare ignitable liquid residues. (ILR). Comparisons are beyond the scope of the standard test method, ASTM E-1618, but the science is not complicated.

The source of ILRs may be of interest to fire investigators. This is particularly true if two samples contain the same classification of ILR.

One way to compare any type of ILR to a suspected source or to see if two ILRs within the same class came from the same source is to compare the average molecular weights. When exposed to a fire, ignitable liquid evaporates, and its average molecular weight necessarily increases. No predictable experience causes the average molecular weight of the fire-exposed liquid to decrease. If the suspected source of an ignitable liquid, which was not exposed to the fire, exhibits a higher average molecular weight than the residue extracted from samples collected at the scene, the suspected source can be conclusively eliminated.

This was a crucial finding in the case of California versus George Souliotes, who had MPD on his shoes, and there was MPD found in the fire scene. The prosecution claimed that this "match" proved that Souliotes was guilty. In fact, the MPD found in the fire scene in an area exposed to the fire had a lower average molecular weight than the MPD on his shoes. Thus it was possible to eliminate the proposition that the MPD inside the scene was accidentally spilled onto the defendant's shoes. All the chemists who examined the data agreed that the two MPDs had a different source.

With respect to any painted surface, a finding of a trace amount of MPD in the absence of a comparison sample is meaningless. In the Fegley fire, this was especially meaningless because it was found on an exterior surface of the basement window. A photo of the window is attached.

You will only find a report of a comparison on a lab report if you ask for the comparison to be done.

A copy of the affidavit that I filed questioning the significance of the MPD finding can be found here [app.box.com]

John J. Lentini, CFI
Scientific Fire Analysis
Islamorada, FL
www.firescientist.com
scientific.fire@yahoo.com

Attachments: Window.jpg (417.4kB)  


Subject Views Written By Posted
  Indiana Arson/Homicide charges dropped 1330 John Lentini 01/14/2019 03:02PM
  Re: Indiana Arson/Homicide charges dropped 778 DG29 01/14/2019 10:02PM
  Re: Indiana Arson/Homicide charges dropped 833 John Lentini 01/15/2019 01:57PM
  Re: Indiana Arson/Homicide charges dropped 693 iacoss 01/16/2019 05:09PM
  Re: Indiana Arson/Homicide charges dropped 733 John Lentini 01/17/2019 02:29PM
  Re: Indiana Arson/Homicide charges dropped 766 iacoss 01/17/2019 05:12PM
  Re: Indiana Arson/Homicide charges dropped 556 Sir Gary 05/08/2019 05:32AM


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.