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: So no causes what do yall think.
Posted by:
J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: June 29, 2021 08:28AM
Gary, I agree with you. As to the tale, well it was not one of my best moments as an investigator. For years I did not speak about it. I guess age has changed me. It was a lesson important for me to learn. It was like a wakeup call when it came to using circumstantial evidence. We need to go back to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He stated, “Circumstantial evidence is very tricky. It may seem to point straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something different.” As it turned out you would think he was addressing this case.
This is my point of view as to circumstantial evidence. Unlike direct evidence, which relies on personal knowledge or observation and yields a definite conclusion, circumstantial evidence is based largely on inference and uses inductive reasoning. That is, circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly proves a fact or supports a theory. Therefore, we must be careful as to how it is interpreted. You must look at it from multiple directions. I would suggest all fire investigators go on the internet and read the convictions that have been overturned where circumstantial evidence was used to gain the conviction.
The story I told does end a little better. After speaking with the individual, I went to the attorney that tried the case for the insurance company. I explained to him what took place and what was said as to who was responsible for the fire. I learned later that he had called the contact at the insurance company, and they discussed the situation. A decision was made to pay the individual for his loss. I met the owner of the bar a few years after and believe it or not we became friends. It was to the point when I was in the area I would stop and have lunch with him. This event changed my direction as a fire investigator. That is why I chose to serve on the original 921 committee. I will never say 921 is perfect, but it is better than what investigators had before it was published. That is why I am happy to see it moved away from classifications.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group