I do not think he is against 921as a reference or guide. What concerns him and many others is how it is applied. Those that try to say it is mandatory to follow what is in the document and there is no exception has caused the reluctance to accept the document. He was trying to say about the scientific method is that the conclusion reached based on its use is still not an absolute finding because with science there is no absolutes. Without it being an absolute is it truly beyond a reasonable doubt. One thing that is hurt 921 is the fact that they no longer believe in the process of elimination. If you really look at it the scientific method is the process of elimination. Even though you may not have an absolute conclusion, you do have a conclusion based on a methodology that was designed to reach the best conclusion possible. Here it comes down to a better explanation needed in 921 is to have the scientific method that is listed in the document enables the investigator to reach a conclusion that also meets the requirements of the courts for beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no doubt that is properly apply the scientific method it gives you a reliable determination. So here the document needs to have an area explaining how one equals the other.

It is not harder to determine incendiary fire. What has changed is what evidence is available. The old myths that were challenged by 921 in the beginning where to explain to the investigator why these myths were incorrect and should not be used in the evaluation process. Everyone says by removing these myths it made determinations harder than I guess I did.

If one needs to identify the first fuel ignited in the source of ignition, I agree that it makes it almost impossible to identify the causes of most fires. There are some cases where this is possible, but I would say the majority of the cases this is never done. Did destruction caused by the fire and all the dead consumes makes it difficult to pinpoint an exact fuel. Most cases there is multiple fuels. One may be able to determine a competent source of ignition in an area but because of the destruction does not know specifically what fuel that was that was the first to ignite. Under these conditions you can still develop a cause for the fire. If one must determine a specific fuel as being the first one ignite it to be able to make a determination as to the cause of the fire then I will question the accuracy of a large number of determinations being made through the use of the scientific method.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group