I may have, and I am sorry. What I was thinking about to the methodology of problem solving. Her we refer to it as the scientific method. If one takes time to think about it, all decision making uses this basic methodology. We explaining this to a jury, I often use the problem of crossing a street where there is traffic. Before the explanation, most of those on the jury had no idea as to what the scientific method is and how it is used. If you would have asked them to explain this method, I would say most would have just sat there looking at you. Because they cannot explain it, does this mean they do not properly apply it when solving a problem? It is from this that I believe a person can investigate a fire and come up with an accurate determination without having an understanding of the scientific method found in 921 or being able to say all the steps were followed.

As to the courts understanding, I have seen some problems with how they apply the methodology they believe is needed. I a recent firearms case, the question was as to the marking on the casing cause by the ejection after being fired. In that case, the judge found that there was insufficient research to support the methodology being used to match a specific firearm with a shell casing. The court instructed the expert that the expert could not say that the casing matched the specific weapon but could testify that the expert could not eliminate that weapon as being the one that ejected that casing.

Are we at a point that we need to say it cannot be proven that this did not cause the fire over saying that this is what caused the fire?

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group