I must agree with you. I am not sure when that was eliminated it was properly though through because if one looks through the document, they will find it is still being recommended.

Let me ask you this, is not the scientific method a process of elimination. Does not one evaluate data and during this evaluation accept and reject the information learned from this process. According to 921 the analysis of the data is based on the knowledge, training, experience, and expertise of the individual doing the analysis. Using this the investigation uses these three areas, the investigator weighs the pros and cons of each piece of data and by using training, experience, and expertise some data is accepted and other rejected. As an example, one need only to look at the section for the analysis of structural damage. Here the document states, “The response of a structural element's protection can also aid in determination of fire severity. If a fire severity is known, it may be possible to use this in the elimination of fire origin or causes.” Is one not using the process of elimination when analyzing the structural damage? In another place the document instructs the user that systematic evaluation (hypothesis testing) is then conducted with the elimination of those hypotheses that are not supportable (or refuted) by the facts discovered through further examination. The document states, “The process of elimination is an integral part of the scientific method. All potential ignition sources present, or believed to be present in the area of origin should be identified and alternative hypotheses should be considered and challenged against the facts. Elimination of a hypothesis by disproving the hypothesis with reliable evidence is a fundamental part of the scientific method.” In this section they warn this process can be used inappropriately. Is that not all that was needed.

I know the purpose of removing this process was directed at incendiary fire, and there may be some good reasoning to support the action when it comes to incendiary fire. I believe warnings and examples as to inappropriately use would have been sufficient.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group