Doug, you point out some good points. Because of those points is why I say it is up to the individual if a classification is used in a report.

Chapter 20 Classification was nothing more than definitions of accidental, incendiary, natural, and undetermined. I did not believe this was the methodology used in reaching the classifications. The methodology to make such classifications are found in other chapters within the document. The definition of incendiary and accident are presently in the definition section of 921. The definition for undetermined is found in Chapter 19. There may be a need for a definition of natural.

My question is because of most of the fire cause classifications being found in other areas of the document, was the removal of this chapter that really effects the investigator’s determination as to the cause? The two paths you mentioned is still in the document.

Now let’s talk about intent. I think you will agree this is the most important factor when classifying the incendiary fire cause. How can an investigator determine what was the person’s intent? When we talk about incendiary we are talking about a criminal act. The legal definition of intent is defined as a determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason.

How many investigators know there are two types of intent? These are Specific Intent and General Intent.

Specific intent refers to a particular state of mind in which the defendant not only intended to commit an actus reus, or guilty act (the second required element), he must also have intended the consequences of that act. It is a way to define a case in which the defendant intended all elements of the crime at hand. To me this would be when a person sets a fire with the purpose of destroy the entire building.

General intent is simply the intent to do what is forbidden by law. The prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant intended everything that unfolded from committing the crime. An example of a general intent crime is battery. Battery is defined generally as “intentional and harmful physical contact with another person.” If a person physically strikes another person, it can be reasonably assumed that the person knew it would cause harm. Further reasons for committing the act are not needed for the burden of proof.

For general intent, the prosecution need only prove that the defendant intended to do the act in question, whereas proving specific intent would require the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to bring about a specific consequence through his or her actions, or that he or she perform the action with a wrongful purpose.

Would you agree that determining one’s intent is based on circumstantial evidence? That is the way I believe. Determining intent uses a subjective methodology. As an example, if I walked into the wrong room, realized the mistake, and left, that would be evidence that I didn’t really intend to walk into that room. The circumstantial evidence would be because I walked in and turned around and left the room that I had made a mistake. The fact maybe I intended to enter that room but remembered I forgot something I decided to go back and get it. Another example is there was a fire on my bed and several small fires leading from the bedroom to the front door. You can smell gasoline in the hallway and the bedroom. Now was my intent to set the house on fire or could there be another reason for what took place. I can tell you this was a fire I investigated, and the person never intended to burn his house.

For fire investigators, establishing intent, whether through direct or circumstantial evidence, requires one to once again travel inside the mind of the person once again and not only understand the person’s intent, but prove it. I would question the investigators knowledge about psychology. We all need to remember that in the Willinghan case, the investigators used their analysis of the patterns to reach a conclusion as to the person’s intent. Here is the case of using subjective evidence to determine intent of the person responsible. They presented to the jury that the fire was incendiary. This classification was used to guide the jury to a decision. They then testified that the patterns revealed the intent of the person to kill the children in the house. What happened in this case was based on the intent of Mr. Willinghan as it was determined by the investigators. This is the danger of determining a person’s intent, if you are wrong you could wind up being extremally wrong.

I need to go back to what is the purpose of classifying the cause of a fire. Is the classification system necessary in civil cases or criminal cases? From what I have seen classifications are mostly used in developing statistics to be used by an agency to justify their funding and to show when an increase in funding is needed.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group