If an investigator can never say that of the hypotheses considered one is believed to be correct based on the fact it could not be disproved using all the data available than what is the purpose of the investigation. If I am sitting on a jury as a person that has not specific knowledge about fire investigation, and you tell me you can never prove a hypothesis to be correct you have just lost me. My question would be why you made me sit through your testimony if you cannot tell me which hypothesis is correct. According to science you may be correct, but you are just waisted my time. If I’m already with the opinion that I did not want to be on the jury, you are saying that you cannot say which of the hypotheses is correct will aggravate me more. From there I will just discount what you have to say.

As the person sitting on the jury there are only two possibilities. The first is you know what happened or the second is you do not know. You may say your profession has four outcomes, but all I what to know is which of your hypothesis is correct to explain what took place. If you say most reliable, then I want to hear about the others you consider reliable. If you say there are none that are reliable, then I want to know why you used the term “most reliable”.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group