I do not mine being question and being required to support my decision. I understand when it is said the investigator needs to educate the trier of fact. That is just not my way. I find when a person talks over me as is they need to teach me what I should know I get defensive. Most on a jury feel the same way. I remember there was this fire investigator/electrical engineer that was going to teach the judge about the transfer of heat. What the engineer did not know is that the judge had a master’s degree in thermodynamics. And his decision the judge mentioned how the person was attempting to talk over him and Buffalo him with words that were not correct in their explanation of heat transfer. I am always believed when uses common sense keeps the testimony to where the trier of fact will understand it, they will get better results.

I agree you cannot keep your files forever. If your case is going to court, there’s a good chance there will be a copy of your report maintained by the court. Or anyone to challenge your conclusion years after they will have to have a copy of your report to indicate where you were incorrect. Basically, I would not worry about being challenged years down the line. Everyone wants to say investigations are always open for reinterpretation, technically they are correct. There is always a possibility, especially in criminal cases. Whether it be a criminal investigation or a civil investigation there is always a chance that it will be new information. All you must do is investigate and say that you are willing to evaluate this new information and be willing to change your opinion based upon that information. I will give a personal example. It was a civil case where east by my testimony the insured was found to have been responsible for the selling of the fire. I had everything you would want is proof in this case. I have a locked building with the insured in the only keys. I had a fire starting in the middle of the floor in a room. There were not ignition sources at that location. Four years after the jury had rendered their opinion, I learned that there was a person who is now confessing to the fire that was not the owner. Without going into a lot of detail, I met with this person and listen to what he had to say yes to his reasons for setting the fire and how he set the fire. What is there was sufficient to disprove my theory as to the cause of the fire. Went back to the attorney I was working for and gave him this information and told him I could no longer stand by my original opinion. So, what I am saying is yes there may be times you will need to go back years after rendering an opinion and change that opinion. There is no disgrace in correcting a flawed opinion.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group