John:

The first thing is I really think it is important for everyone reviewing this post to read the question asked to this individual reference to 1033 and ask themselves if they know the correct answers.

I see where the individual said he was up to date as to meeting the requirements of 1033. He said he was certified as a fire investigator. He said he met the requirements of the sixteen topics beyond high school level. He said he would need to refresh his knowledge on some of the topics. He said he took all the CFITrainer class that relate to the topics. He said he would need to refer to a book to give exact definitions. He said if he had a question, he would look up the definition in 921 so it would be correct. This was the answer he gave for most of the got you question as to definitions.

I would say the question asked, such as the phase change of state was answered but not to the liking of the person answering the question. As to the phase change of state he said it was a matter changes into another source. Another question was how many volumes of air does it take reaction with one volume of methane. I think but I am not sure the person was trying to learn how many volumes of air and methane are needed to form an explosive atmosphere. If I am not mistaking it is 10 volumes of air to one volume of methane. Hope this is correct, if not I need to get out of the fire investigation business.
What came out of his deposition to me is something I have a problem with and that is the lack of participation in the NFPA’s document making process by individual in out industry. He was caught here when he said that it was his obligation to see to it that 921 was correct. There he said he did not recall if he ever disagreed with information in 921 and has never submitted aa proposal to the committee. It is hard to believe that a person would agree to everything that is in that document.

Based on the deposition, the defendant said there was burning taking place on the floor in a specific area. He said there were a lot of glowing embers throughout the carpet in this area burning. The investigator said that after being told this information he and another investigator went back to the scene and cleared the debris off the floor in that area. They found under the debris the remains of what they called brand new carpet that was not burned and in what was described in pristine condition. There was a photograph that supported his finding. What he did in the room was to find undamaged items in an area where the defendant said the fire was first seen. This refuted the defendant’s statement as to where the fire was located.

NFPA 921’s definition of full room involvement is, “Condition in a compartment fire in which the entire volume is involved in combustion
of varying intensities.” If there was unburned flooring and other items in the room with limits damage from the fire that were at floor level was there total room involvement in this room?
What did the investigator get wrong here?

This can go on forever. I have not looked at all the photographs, statements, and other material involved in this case to where I would even suggest the defendant’s involvement or not involvement. All I am saying is that even though this investigator botched the answering of questions as they pertain to 1033, he did seem conduct his investigation using the methodology found in 921. Not saying he touched all the bases. I am also not saying he is right.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group