I do not want my posts to indicate I disagree with John’s position that the profession of fire investigation has the duty to educate itself to the level that persons are not unjustly accused of setting a fire. I believe in the statement of William Blackstone that states, “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer.” I have seen the suffering caused to persons that have been wrongly accused or convicted.

In my opinion, what has led to the wrong accusations is the lack of knowledge of the investigator. I have been in the business for over 50 years and have seen how education has changed how investigations are conducted. When I started the education was for the most part you were assigned to a senior investigator, and it was on the job training. Whatever that person believed to be true about fires then became your belief. There was no science behind the investigations being conducted.

What I have seen in the fire investigation profession is the reluctance to change. When I participate in the first edition of NFPA 921 I was told it would be the end of fire investigations if investigators were required to follow the information in the document. I was told by my supervisor we were completely wrong in taking away things like spalding.

Unfortunately, when any change is announced, fire investigator will not all respond to it with joy, glee and a punch into the air saying, ‘Brilliant, yet another change! Bring it on! I’m very excited to be a part of it!’ Given that change is here to stay, there’s the need for understanding why the investigator resist change. Why do some fire investigators dig in their heels and resist change at all costs? We can develop all the standard in the world, but if we as a profession do not work to minimize this resistance, we will always be fighting a up hill battle.

How we as a profession manage the changes will have a direct relation to how the change is accepted. When you train a dog is it better to beat him into submission or is it better through positive re-enforcement. What needs to be done through out educational programs is to make the individual understand the needs behind the changes. You want the person not only to accept the concept of change but believe it will help him as an individual. He may need to do more, but in the long run it will make his life easier.

Any change is stressful to the individual. When something causes you to be stressed how do you feel about it? This is part of the resistance. Overcoming this stress is the goal if we, as a profession, want to move forward at a faster pace.

John and others like ATF through their research have shown us a direction to improve our investigations. They are giving us good quality scientific data in which to improve our investigation. NFPA 1033 is the perfect document to use when developing an outline for training. As training courses are developed there must be an indication in the course outline as to what area of NFPA 1033 the course covers. This gives the investigator a measurable path to follow to complete the requirements of NFPA 1033. What this will do is set a goal, have a path to achieve the goal, and ensure that the required information is being learned.

Compliance with NFPA 1033 is our goal as a profession. In most course outlines they do not relate to course material to the specific area of NFPA 1033. By not having this information we are not giving the investigator the incentive of by taking this course he has taken another positive step to meeting the requirement set by NNFPA 1033. This would be an easy change. Have the related areas of NFPA 1033 that will be covered by the course and on the certificate list these areas. If we can do this I believe we can incentivize the investigator to a point it will overcome his resistance to change and lower the stress level that comes with the change.

Just my thoughts.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group