dcarpenter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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."
>
> The definitions matter with respect to arriving at
> an incendiary fire cause classification. There is
> no methodology described in other chapters for
> determining a cause classification. That is in the
> removed chapter on Cause Classification.
>
> The definition of undetermined in Chapter 19 is
> associated with a Fire Cause and not the
> classification. This is clearly stated in the
> removed chapter on classification.
>
> My main point is that I am not sure those who
> agree with the chapter removal understand the
> practical application of a cause classification
> and how this changes the ability to arrive at a
> determination that the fire 'was set'. Disprove my
> hypothesis.
>
> I would be interested in a discussion and examples
> of fire investigations that produce a reliable
> determination using the SM of a "set fire" without
> the use of a cause classification.


Easy one maybe,,,

a person enters a building after hours, and is the only one in it.

Cameras all over the place record all moments, including pouring a liquid out of a large container.

And on the way out, camera shows him light a piece of newspaper in his hand, and throw it on the floor, and almost instantly, fire starts to be seen.


So report and lab support what the camera saw. Report also states what was seen on the cameras, with no names attached.

End of report, no other hypothesis supports the fire?



One other item that I have not seen mentioned, is State Laws.

Ours we do not have to prove intent, just the fire started.