To me, classification has two purposes. The first is for statistical purposes and the second is to be used in identifying a crime.

I would not say it was causing a problem with the fire department’s reporting system, only that it conflicted with the methodology used to reach a cause determination. The NIFRS system went into more details, such as the number of questions to be answered before reaching a conclusion.

Let’s look at the sections NIFR’s requires the fire investigator to address. Some are the same that is found in 921, but there are some additional ones.

• Availability of Material First Ignited. (Was it at the scene or brought to the scene.)
• Suspected Motive Factors. (Here they list 26 potential motive factors that must be investigated.)
• Apparent Group Involvement. (Terrorist, Gangs, Anti-government, Outlaw Motorcycle Organizations, Organized Crime, Racial/Ethnic Hate Groups, Religious Hate Groups, Sexual Preference Hate Groups, Other Groups.)
• Entry Method. (Was there prior forced entry and if so, through where.)
• Extent of Fire Involvement on Arrival. (Nothing showing, Smoke only, Flames and Smoke, Flames through the roof, Fully Involved.)
• Incendiary Devices. (Containers, Ignition Devices (Delayed or Not), Fuel (Ordinary combustibles, Flammable Gas, Ignitable Liquid, Ignitable Solids, Pyrotechnic Material, Explosive Material or other materials)
• Other Investigative Information. (Code Violations, Structure For Sale, Structure Vacant, Other Crimes, Illicit Drug Activity, Change In Insurance, Financial Problems, Criminal/Civil Actions Pending.)
• Property Ownership.
• Initial Observations. Windows Ajar, Doors Ajar, Doors Looked, Doors Unlocked, Fire Department Forced Entry, Forced Entry Prior To Fire Department’s Arrival, Security System Activated, Security System Not Activated.)

Now compare that to what was called for in the classification section of 921. Can one say that if you are to classify the cause of a fire there is not the need to address these issues?

As to 921 being a document to be used by the profession in investigating fires, the intent was always to include both the public and private sectors. The first 921 took direct aim at the myths being used by fire investigators that was not supported by science. I one looks at the changes in the cause section over the years you can see the dilemma the committee was facing when addressing classifications.

What was the purpose of the classification becoming the question? If 921 is to be a science-based document, then one must ask if a classification is based on science or some other factor. If it is another factor, then should it be in 921? What I saw is that classification was a personal opinion of the investigator based on known facts. Many times, the classification is based on the investigator’s evaluation of intent.

I agree, intent is something that should be decided by the judge or jury. If this is the case, what is the purpose of the classification by the investigator. Is it to guide the judge or jury to a specific finding? I believe if the facts are properly presented there is no need for the investigator to classify the cause of a fire, it will be obvious.

Would you agree the main purpose of a fire investigation is to determine the origin and cause of the fire? If one were to identify the fuel ignited and the source of heat that resulted in the ignition of the fuel, then that task has been accomplished. Can this task be accomplished without assigning a classification? Classification has nothing to do with the determination as to the origin and cause of a fire. This takes us back to the question, what is the purpose of the classification. Is it for statistical requirements or is it to be used to guide other, such as the judge or jury, to a specific finding? If I were to explain to the judge or jury the fact that the initial fuel ignited was not something normally found at that location and the source of ignition had to be applied by a person, what do you think their conclusion would be as to the cause. Yes, it requires more of a explanation that just using one word but I can show how I applied the scientific method to reach that conclusion.

I believe, and this is just my opinion, that the committee did not believe it should be addressing intent if the document is to be considered science based. Is intent a subjective conclusion? Aside from the problem of confusion, why does it matter how we define intent? The answer begins with the proposition that intent, of course, cannot be seen directly by witnesses. It eludes all five senses. It is known only to the actor, and even here, only sometimes, because some definitions of intent allow the actor to readily believe that there is no intent, even when there is. There really are only two ways of proving intent: by an admission of the actor whose intent is in question (one that is admissible in evidence), or by circumstantial evidence. The next question would be is the circumstantial evidence based of science? Much of what is in the NIFRS reporting system address intent by using circumstantial evidence.

As I have mentioned, 921 does not prohibit the investigator from assigning a classification for the cause of a fire. The only point I take from the committee’s action is that classifications have a direct relation to intent. The Supreme Court has stated, “intent is always determined by objective means”. This means the intent is based on observed facts. As can be seen in the NFIRS reporting system, many of the facts have nothing to do with science.

I would not tell a person not to classify the cause of the fire. It is just my personal belief and experience that this draws the investigator into areas that can be challenged. Why fight that fight is it is not necessary.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group