John:

The first thing I see is this person’s lack of experience in giving testimony. Yes, his answer was poorly worded, and did not make him look good. I do not think his idea is completely off base. One of his first mistakes was not understanding that when a question starts with, “Would you agree”. To me this is a rocket going up and the fireworks exploding saying danger.

As an example, to the question, “In the metric system, what are the basic units of energy?” I would start off my answer by say as I am sure you know the metric system is not taught in the United States. Where some specific field of science use the metric system, it is not used in basic fire investigation. I can tell you that when a fire is burning it produces heat, and that heat can cause other things to ignite. As with many things involved in fire investigations it is just as important to know where to find the information you are asking about as it is to know it. I believe it is the same for lawyers in that they do not know every law or court decision, but they have the knowledge where to go to obtain the information. Sometimes it may be as easy as going to the right person to gain the necessary knowledge.

As to the questions you are asking me, they are from a document that has not been accepted as a requirement to be followed by the city, county, or state where I work. You are suggesting that I must have specific knowledge from a document that has not been recognized where this investigation was conducted.

What I typed above is not exactly what I said in a deposition, but close to it. The opposing attorney said my answer was non-responsive. We ended up going to the judge and the judge. The judge asked the attorney asking the question if what I said about the document not being recognized was correct. Once the attorney agreed, the judge told him to find an appropriate document to use in my questioning.
I am not knocking NFPA 1033. I believe the moving of the specific areas of knowledge to the job performance requirements section will reduce these types of questions. Now it will know be the individual saying he has sufficient knowledge in these areas, but the jurisdiction that has authorized the person to conduct investigations. Now the attorney will have to discredit the jurisdiction, be it a city, county, or state.

We do need to increase the knowledge of those conducting investigation. This is better done through positive re-enforcement as compared to negative.

The prosecutor also blew it. At the motion hearing the prosecutor should have called the person to the stand. Remember, sections from a deposition does not give a full picture. If the prosecutor had any experience in fire investigation he would have met with the investigator before the hearing and gone over question, he would be asked.

For anyone on this form to judge the quality of this person’s investigation one would need at the minimum to see the person’s report. All this showed was that he did not know the academic answers to specific questions. It did not go into this person’s educating, training, and experience. As a person that was subjected to a judge with little to know knowledge making a decision as to my ability to testify, I know how this can go down. In my case, the judge said what I used in reaching my decision was the accepted by the scientific community. When this decision was reached there had been tow previous courts that agreed with my theory. Within a year after this judge’s decision there was independent testing that supported my theory. So, it my case I would have to say the judge’s decision was wrong. What if the individual(s) involved in this case did set the fire, now they are walking free not because of a bad investigation, but because the investigator could not answer academic questions.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group