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: J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: November 07, 2020 09:55AM
My first question to you as to the NFPA statement is the use of the word consensus. What does NFPA consider a consensus? What is true is that the procedures represent the judgement of the committee. If you have ever been to a general meeting of the NFPA you would find the over 90% of those voting to adopt a document have no knowledge as to what is in the document and are not involved in that profession.
I do agree there is nothing wrong with deviating from what is found in NFPA 921. If you do you can expect to be challenged and you need to support the reasoning behind your decision. The problem I have with that wording is that it gives on a loop hold in areas that there should not be one. Leave me give you an example. When it comes to bringing gasoline powered equipment into the area determined to be the origin of the fire 921 states the investigator needs to document this activity. They do not instruct the investigator to advise the laboratory of this activity. Why not? What if the samples collected are taken after the gasoline powered equipment is used in the area? Now the lab states they have found positive samples of gasoline. Why will not 921 firmly state do not bring gasoline powered equipment into the area of origin.
The same goes with “V” patterns. Yes, there are some fires that are so small that it is evident that the point of the “V” is the source of fuel first ignited. If that is the case, why does a “V” pattern event need to be mentioned.
Let’s look at the definition of a “rule of thumb”. A rule of thumb is a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory. Has not NFPA 921 been trying to eliminate indicates based on the rule of thumb since its origination. I can say yes as to the beginning because I was there. We called them what they really were “old wives tales”. When one looks at the definition for that term one finds that it is a superstition or traditional belief that is regarded as unscientific or incorrect. Is that not what for the most part what Doug is trying to get across. That term was later determined not to be politically correct and was changed as not to offend anyone.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group
I do agree there is nothing wrong with deviating from what is found in NFPA 921. If you do you can expect to be challenged and you need to support the reasoning behind your decision. The problem I have with that wording is that it gives on a loop hold in areas that there should not be one. Leave me give you an example. When it comes to bringing gasoline powered equipment into the area determined to be the origin of the fire 921 states the investigator needs to document this activity. They do not instruct the investigator to advise the laboratory of this activity. Why not? What if the samples collected are taken after the gasoline powered equipment is used in the area? Now the lab states they have found positive samples of gasoline. Why will not 921 firmly state do not bring gasoline powered equipment into the area of origin.
The same goes with “V” patterns. Yes, there are some fires that are so small that it is evident that the point of the “V” is the source of fuel first ignited. If that is the case, why does a “V” pattern event need to be mentioned.
Let’s look at the definition of a “rule of thumb”. A rule of thumb is a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory. Has not NFPA 921 been trying to eliminate indicates based on the rule of thumb since its origination. I can say yes as to the beginning because I was there. We called them what they really were “old wives tales”. When one looks at the definition for that term one finds that it is a superstition or traditional belief that is regarded as unscientific or incorrect. Is that not what for the most part what Doug is trying to get across. That term was later determined not to be politically correct and was changed as not to offend anyone.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.