Yes, I know your feeling more than you know. I you could go back on here to some of the discussions I had with Pat Kennedy you would get an idea as to my feelings about 921. I have always had strong feeling about the document and how it is used. You are right about the case being never ending. Many, including some on the committee, will tell you I am anti 921. While not on the committee, I have still made many comments that I believe will improve the document only to be shot down with half hearted reasoning. My problem with the document and the direction it is going is that they want to make the finding an absolute. The believe this because they want to say it is based only on science. This is where I have disagreed with the committee for years.

I do not know if you remember the art and science arguments. The word art was taken out of the document. From the beginning, I have compared the fire investigation profession to the medical profession. If you think about it, we are like a doctor with a sick patient. The medical profession states their profession is art based on science. This way they keep the human aspect in their process. We use our education, knowledge, and experience to analyze the information we learn from the scene examination. This is the art segment of the investigation. Yes, during the analyzation process we use the information from science and then apply this science.

When one looks at the committee’s actions it is easy to see the direction of the document. The removal of classifications and level of certainty show the direction. Then you take the report from the Forensic Science Committee and the reenforces the direction. I am not saying it is all bad, but the intent is to make it seem infallible because of it being based on science. Here is where you and I are inline. I believe 921 is a guidance for investigators.

I believe all NFPA documents are a guidance to the profession they are intended to represent. It is then up to the individual jurisdiction to say if it is a requirement or not. Now we are into NFPA 1033. There is no question that the NFPA considers it a standard. It is being pushed that way, but something is being left out. What is never mentioned is the statement made by NFPA is the section titled Importance Notices and Disclaimers Concerning NFPA Standards. Look at the last two paragraphs of that section.


In issuing and making this document available, the NFPA is not undertaking to render professional or other services for or on behalf of any person or entity. Nor is the NFPA undertaking to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to someone else. Anyone using this document should rely on his or her own independent judgment or, as appropriate, seek the advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances.

The NFPA has no power, nor does it undertake, to police or enforce compliance with the contents of this document. Nor does the NFPA list, certify, test or inspect products, designs, or installations for compliance with this document. Any certification or other statement of compliance with the requirements of this document shall not be attributable to the NFPA and is solely the responsibility of the certifier or maker of the statement.

I think these statements explain NFPA opinion as to their document better than I or anyone else. Who are we to contest what NFPA states about their documents ownership. NFPA has gone to court and was successful in have it determined these documents are owned by the NFPA and they are the final say as to the documents use.

The only way these documents become mandatory is if the jurisdiction adopts it as law. By adopting it as law is the only time it is legally mandatory. Sure, the courts have accepted 921 for the purpose of evaluating the performance of an individual. This still does not make it mandatory. The same goes for all the NFPA standards.

I agree with you about NFIRS. When I was the chief of a fire district, I had the policy that the engine company officer was to mark the classification section as undetermined. You are right this is not being done as it should be, and this results in their classification as being unreliable.

In talking about how to speak to those responsible in understanding the investigation that was conducted you could not be more correct. I had a case where part of the discussion was about a hydraulic valve and its operation. I knew that talking in a technical language would only confuse the issue. What I learned in advance was that one of the persons on the jury was retired military. His job in the military was working on these valves. I compared the operation of the valve to the valve found on the water facet that they operated every day. I started my testimony by saying that I worked on these valves while in the service and they were not different than the valves they used every day. I learned after the trial that that person on the jury that I made a connection with continued to educate the jury during their deliberation and thereby supported me as being a person that was actuate and truthful.

It can never be stressed enough that your communication must be at a level that the person you are communicating with can understand. The more one can make it relate to the persons day-to-day activity, the better the person will understand. The better the person understands the more he will believe what is being said it truthful.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group