There is a difference in following the more global steps of the SM specific to the investigation of fire and explosion incidents.

A deeper dive produces the details of the specific methodology of how the SM was applied to a specific set of circumstance in a specific fire or explosion incident. This is where the "rubber meets the road" with respect to any challenge of the scientific reliability of the methodology used.

While the judge in this case did address the issue at hand (i.e. number of steps used), I have seen the use of the global steps to provide cover for the use of an unreliable application of the SM in specific cases. The questioning goes ...Did you follow the step of collecting data? ... Yes..Did you follow the step of analyzing the data? ... Yes. This line of questioning obscures such details as the evidence used to formulate a valid hypothesis and the evidence used to try and disprove a valid hypothesis.

Did you follow the steps of the SM?... was the initial and continuing battleground. I see the reliable application of the SM as the subsequent battleground that will test experts as lawyers and fire investigators become more enlightened on how to reliably apply the SM to a specific set of cirrcumstances.

Douglas J. Carpenter, MScFPE, CFEI, PE, FSFPE
Vice President & Principal Engineer
Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.
8940 Old Annapolis Road, Suite L
Columbia, MD 21045
(410) 884-3266
(410) 884-3267 (fax)
www.csefire.com