John:

First let me say it is thanks to you and others like you that have pushed this profession to a higher standard. I know you are very passionate on this issue. Some of the individuals investigating fires need to find another profession if they refuse to upgrade their knowledge. At times I feel frustrated when my local chapter is putting on an excellent class addressing the ignition of fugitive gases and can get only four people to sign up for the class that cost only $50 in a state that has a couple hundred people conduct in fire investigations. I also got a problem in that must date a person does not have to have any knowledge about fires to get a license from the state to investigate fires.

I agree with you that 1033 is a recognized national standard to a degree. The problem comes from what is required by the authority having jurisdiction and what is being done in the courts. I must disagree about the judge ruling against the use of 1033. He did not just rule against the document and let the person say what he wanted to. He had a hearing and let the attorneys ask questions as to the person’s methodology and what the person used to support his findings. The investigator produced research that supported his finding, and the judge accepted this information.

You say that my comment about the metric system is just wrong. A fire investigator who doesn't know what a watt is like a carpenter who doesn't know how many inches there are in a foot. If you are correct, a fire investigator that cannot tell me the difference between a fire alarm system and a life safety notification system or cannot tell me the type of construction and occupancy classifications is the same. I take it you are saying these individuals should not be accepted by the court.

I had a case where the opposing expert was a well known and looked up to person in our industry. Without question he could answer all the question you could come up with out of 1033. This person developed a timeline as to when the fire would have started based on a video. A person was seen entering and exiting the structure during this timeline. This person testified that the person seen in the video set the fire even though the person entered the building after the time when he said the fire could have started. He supported his finding by saying a person in the building should have known if the was a fire already taking place in the attic and would not have left the building without reporting it. Supporting his finding was the fact that the laboratory detected gasoline in the samples taken. He did not mention that the fire department had used a gasoline powered generator in the same area. He also did not mention that he never found the reason for the activation of the circuit breakers in that area. The person was convicted. I believe the conviction was based on the pedigree of the investigator testifying for the prosecution over the defense’s expert. NFPA 1033 was no help in this case.

I am not saying the guy whose deposition you posted should not be in another business. You may not remember but when I started there was a person who was in charge of the fire investigation unit for the Aetna insurance company. He was a former fire marshal with the city of New York. This person said he could tell if the man was the arsonist who set the fire by the way he stood at a urinal. I was glade when he retired. Yes, I believe there are many that should not be testifying. What I am saying is just because a person can answer the got you questions on electricity does not mean that person is qualified to investigate a fire. Most engineers can answer those questions, but they should not be investigating fires based on answers about electricity. Without all the other knowledge to investigate a fire would not that person also be considered a hack. I do not want 1033 to be the bible that allows a person to testify, what I want them to do is follow the methodology set by 921. If they need to be attacked I can do it by requiring them to product the supporting information for their concusion. There is not a one size fits all fix for the problems we have with this profession.

I recognize that positive re-enforcement of the individual that gave inaccurate information causing a person to be convicted is no consolation to the person that was convicted. That is a wrong that can never be adequately corrected. My goal is to prevent the next on that will take place. Yes, we can use 1033 to beat the hell out of them and to prevent them from testifying but is that really solving the problem. Would it not be better to properly education those willing to learn before it ever gets to that point.

Again, let me thank you for all your time and effort in stopping wrongful convictions.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group