Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: What happens when you SAY you meet 1033 but don't
Posted by: John Lentini (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2022 04:43PM
Jim:
Regardless of whether a jurisdiction formally adopts NFPA 1033, it is still an industry standard. And people who say they meet 1033 should be able to back that up. The judge that let you off because it was not adopted by a local jurisdiction blew it. Judges blow questions like this all the time. It is up to the proponent of an opinion to prove it is reliable. It is not up to the challenger to prove it is unreliable.
Your comment about the metric system is just wrong. A fire investigator who doesn't know what a watt is is like a carpenter who doesn't know how many inches there are in a foot.
You can read the whole deposition if you like. It is here: [app.box.com]
This guy was profoundly unqualified. He thought he was so skilled at reading fire patterns that he could pinpoint the origin of a fire in a fully-involved room that burned for about 30 minutes beyond flashover. Then, when the defendant told him the fire started elsewhere, this guy had him charged with murder.
Fortunately, this particular hack has left the business.
As for using "positive" reinforcement instead of negative reinforcement, take that lame argument to someone who has been wrongly convicted of arson or murder because they were unlucky enough to draw an incompetent hack instead of a qualified expert.
Regardless of whether a jurisdiction formally adopts NFPA 1033, it is still an industry standard. And people who say they meet 1033 should be able to back that up. The judge that let you off because it was not adopted by a local jurisdiction blew it. Judges blow questions like this all the time. It is up to the proponent of an opinion to prove it is reliable. It is not up to the challenger to prove it is unreliable.
Your comment about the metric system is just wrong. A fire investigator who doesn't know what a watt is is like a carpenter who doesn't know how many inches there are in a foot.
You can read the whole deposition if you like. It is here: [app.box.com]
This guy was profoundly unqualified. He thought he was so skilled at reading fire patterns that he could pinpoint the origin of a fire in a fully-involved room that burned for about 30 minutes beyond flashover. Then, when the defendant told him the fire started elsewhere, this guy had him charged with murder.
Fortunately, this particular hack has left the business.
As for using "positive" reinforcement instead of negative reinforcement, take that lame argument to someone who has been wrongly convicted of arson or murder because they were unlucky enough to draw an incompetent hack instead of a qualified expert.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.