I do not know if you watch my postings over the years but if you go back and look you will find there are many of times I have disagreed with 921. Here is what I have done and it has helped when it comes to being questioned by an attorney. The first action is to submit a public comment on the topic for the next edition, I list my reasoning for the disagreement by offering a change to the document. There was one cycle I offered almost one hundred suggestion for changes. Yes, they go shot down by the committee but it gives me a starting point as to answering questions. As an example in this case, one would recommend adding classification into the document. It would suggest the methodology used by NIFRS. I would guess the committee would reject this addition. What this does is to make it look like the committee is refusing to accept something that is being used by most of the public sector. That gives you more creditability and shows your opinion has wide support in your profession. Most attorneys will back off at this point.

As to showing intent one must be careful. In my state if a person is in financial difficulty that is the motive. The intent comes when the person files an insurance claim to gain the funds. The fire could have been caused by the stove being turned on and causing ignition of something one the stove. Based on this a classification is given.

The reason I do not classify the cause of a fire is that in most cases the client does not want me going into the financial background and other areas needed to determine intent. This is not the case with the public sector investigator. If a public sector feels that there is sufficient data for determining intent then what is the problem. You need to remember how classifications got into 921 in the first place. At that time most of those on the committee came from or were part of the public sector. We had been told for years that there had to be a classification for all fires. This carried into the development of 921. Personally, I believe using the committees reasoning for eliminating classifications should also be cause for the elimination of other areas in the document such as motive. Motive determination has nothing to do as to how the fire started or what failed to cause the fire. This is where I believe the committees reasoning fell short. Why remove one without the other.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group