Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
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: Compiling of Unreliable Indicators
Posted by: John Lentini (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2020 09:59AM
"Totality of the Evidence" has always been the fallback position of people relying on bad science. "I'm not just relying on shiny alligatoring, I also have spalling, crazed glass, low burning, and more than one V-pattern." It is a constant twilight struggle. Going back to the 1991 Oakland fire 30-minute video is available here:
[www.youtube.com]
Where several myths were (or should have been) put to rest.
Nine years later, in 2002, people were still publishing myths and I wrote a rebuttal to the NFAR article only to learn that the magazine had ceased publishing. That response is available here
[drive.google.com]
In my view, the problem is that the scientists tasked with determining origin and cause are the same people tasked with figuring out who did it and prosecuting them. The jobs need to be bifurcated and the presentation of evidence needs to be bifurcated as well.
[drive.google.com]
For those without time to review it in its entirety, the conclusion of this 12-page article presented at ISFI follows:
Law enforcement is an important and honorable profession. It plays a central role in keeping a civilized society civilized. But it is not science. Legal “proof” and scientific “proof” are different. Nor is the problem of finding or failing to find the demarcation between scientific and investigative data confined to law enforcement. Cognitive biases are a human condition that afflict both the public and the private sector, both prosecution and defense investigators.
This author has previously suggested means to minimize expectation bias in fire cases by separating the duties of the principal investigator from the fire scene analyst. This methodology, which involves protecting the scene investigator from potentially biasing information, has been applied successfully. [11] Law enforcement officers can use science to aid in the search for justice, but if the science is to be used fairly and effectively, it is important that
scientific evidence be reliable and independent.
John J. Lentini, CFI
Scientific Fire Analysis
Islamorada, FL
www.firescientist.com
scientific.fire@yahoo.com
[www.youtube.com]
Where several myths were (or should have been) put to rest.
Nine years later, in 2002, people were still publishing myths and I wrote a rebuttal to the NFAR article only to learn that the magazine had ceased publishing. That response is available here
[drive.google.com]
In my view, the problem is that the scientists tasked with determining origin and cause are the same people tasked with figuring out who did it and prosecuting them. The jobs need to be bifurcated and the presentation of evidence needs to be bifurcated as well.
[drive.google.com]
For those without time to review it in its entirety, the conclusion of this 12-page article presented at ISFI follows:
Law enforcement is an important and honorable profession. It plays a central role in keeping a civilized society civilized. But it is not science. Legal “proof” and scientific “proof” are different. Nor is the problem of finding or failing to find the demarcation between scientific and investigative data confined to law enforcement. Cognitive biases are a human condition that afflict both the public and the private sector, both prosecution and defense investigators.
This author has previously suggested means to minimize expectation bias in fire cases by separating the duties of the principal investigator from the fire scene analyst. This methodology, which involves protecting the scene investigator from potentially biasing information, has been applied successfully. [11] Law enforcement officers can use science to aid in the search for justice, but if the science is to be used fairly and effectively, it is important that
scientific evidence be reliable and independent.
John J. Lentini, CFI
Scientific Fire Analysis
Islamorada, FL
www.firescientist.com
scientific.fire@yahoo.com
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.