That is not exactly what I am saying. All the data must be collected. What you are explaining is a case put together by circumstantial evidence. The facts you outlined are compelling, but I have seen innocent person put in jail using this type of evidence. I have seen a person convicted on a large commercial fire due to a threat he made to his supervisor without any physical evidence of the fire being set. He told his supervisor that he would blow-up the business and later that day the was a fire in the business. The investigators took this case all the way to court. They jury found him guilty.

What we were talking about is the classification of the fire. What you have explained is circumstantial evidence that can be used in the classification process. This is what is taught in the NIFRS system. As I said, 921 does not say the investigator cannot classify the cause of a fire. All 921 did was to remove classification from the document. The committee stated the scope of NFPA 921 specifically states that the completion of reports for the United States National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) are outside the scope of this guide. However, the classification of incidents is a topic that is addressed by various entities for various reasons. As such, there is a need to provide guidance on where incident classification information can be found and to clarify that incident classification is not the same as cause determination. What they are saying is that 921 is for cause determination and not for classification.

Let me ask you this question. If you presented those facts to a judge or jury without classifying the fire, would you get the same results. Do you believe they would understand this was an intentionally set fire?

Read what the investigators in the Cameron Todd Willington case had to say about their investigation. They used circumstantial evidence to get their conviction. They still to this day believe they were right in their classification. Do you?

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group