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: Notification of Interested Parties
Posted by: efc (IP Logged)
Date: August 16, 2008 12:30PM
Assuming the statement you are disagreeing with is the one you quote just prior to this comment, and then we must agree to disagree.
No one is saying the profession has not greatly improved through the use of research, experimentation, and science, but I will not condemn those conducting investigations prior to the development of 921 and the different certification programs. One would expect, for your hypothesis to be correct, that if an investigator is using 921, and is a CFI or CFEI, there will be a reduction in the conclusions being reach that are contested by other experts. In fact, litigation from the difference of opinions between experts is increasing. In no way is there a suggestion that the profession should regress to where it was prior to the days of 921 and certification programs, but also there should be no personal attacks on persons with different opinions as to what it takes to produce a valid investigation and conclusion.
Your comment about you knowing the person was intentionally attempting to mislead others through the conclusions being reached because he has been in the business for a long time and knows better brings me back to a couple of years back about a person in this profession. According to the comments, this person was the devil of fire investigators, and that he is pushing 921 for the purpose of destroying other fire investigators. This turned out to be just the opposite, in that the individual did use his knowledge to point out the shortcomings of other investigators, but was one of the most knowledgeable people in the fire science field. Through his efforts, he was increasing the quality of the profession.
If you read the comment about witnesses, the point was some investigators are restricted as to what activities they can perform because of department policy. Condemning a person or their investigation because of this type of restriction is not fare to the person.
Take the individual along with the personally out of the equation and evaluate the fact of the investigation and conclusion. When one brings in the individual’s competency in the judgment of the quality and accuracy of the investigation, it tends to make your review look personal and not objective, thereby being counter productive to your original task.
No one is saying the profession has not greatly improved through the use of research, experimentation, and science, but I will not condemn those conducting investigations prior to the development of 921 and the different certification programs. One would expect, for your hypothesis to be correct, that if an investigator is using 921, and is a CFI or CFEI, there will be a reduction in the conclusions being reach that are contested by other experts. In fact, litigation from the difference of opinions between experts is increasing. In no way is there a suggestion that the profession should regress to where it was prior to the days of 921 and certification programs, but also there should be no personal attacks on persons with different opinions as to what it takes to produce a valid investigation and conclusion.
Your comment about you knowing the person was intentionally attempting to mislead others through the conclusions being reached because he has been in the business for a long time and knows better brings me back to a couple of years back about a person in this profession. According to the comments, this person was the devil of fire investigators, and that he is pushing 921 for the purpose of destroying other fire investigators. This turned out to be just the opposite, in that the individual did use his knowledge to point out the shortcomings of other investigators, but was one of the most knowledgeable people in the fire science field. Through his efforts, he was increasing the quality of the profession.
If you read the comment about witnesses, the point was some investigators are restricted as to what activities they can perform because of department policy. Condemning a person or their investigation because of this type of restriction is not fare to the person.
Take the individual along with the personally out of the equation and evaluate the fact of the investigation and conclusion. When one brings in the individual’s competency in the judgment of the quality and accuracy of the investigation, it tends to make your review look personal and not objective, thereby being counter productive to your original task.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.