"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."

Yes but no: If dept policy refuses to allow the investigator to interview witnesses, that is something that they can point out in deposition or trial. But I sure as hell can call into serious question the credibility and accuracy of their investigation when they ignore a very important set of information that can significantly change the potential origin, let alone cause of the incident.

I reference the following as substantiation of this point: 2008 Ed NFPA 921, 13.1.1.2, 13.4 (all subsections), 14.1.3, 14.2, 14.3.1, 15.2.5.2, 15.3, 15.4, 17.2.2, 17.3.1.7, 17.3.2, 17.4.6, 17.8.3, 20.2.1.1, 20.2.2.1, 25.6.2, 25.7.2, 27.4.1, 27.4.7, 28.9.3.6, all discuss the importance of interviewing people. Clearly, there are 20+ citations in 8 different chapters of 921 stating the importance of interviewing witnesses in the investigation. Therefore, it is kind of difficult to defend the accuracy of your investigation if you don't do it.

"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."

My response is that "he" I am talking about claims to be a forensic investigator but:
(1) is not a fire investigator,
(2) not qualified as an investigator or to render opinions into fire causation,
(3) does not follow even the remote general format of NFPA 921,
(4) does not follow even the remote general requirements of ASTM Standards,
(5) is not licensed as required as a PI in the states where such a license is required (civil and/or potential criminal act),
(6) has a clearly stated and biased agenda from the outset,
(7) conducts illegal interviews of witnesses who he has been made aware that are represented by counsel,
(8) make false statements,
(9) hinders investigations when information does not support his position,
(10) and the list can go on and on.

This is the type of person that give our professional a bad reputation and why manufacturers are conducting DAUBERT challenges of opposing "expert" testimony. This is also just another reason why several major insurance carriers and attorneys are generating those pesky letters we previously discussed.

Professionals can disagree, but sometimes we do agree. It is not uncommon for me to take an assignment for a client, only to tell them after conducting an extensive case analysis (reviewing the documentation, interviewing witnesses, review fire investigation reports, photographs, etc) that I do in fact agree with the plaintiff party and that the client might want to consider cutting their losses before incurring additional expenses in defending a losing file.

I understand your point about, "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."

The converse point however, is that it is also equally just as wrong (both professionally and ethically) to keep a manufacturer in a lawsuit strictly because they are a deep pocket. I recently had one case (few months ago) where the client's product was only slightly smoke and heat damaged and not even in the clearly defined and multi-party generally agreed upon 2'x2' area of origin. Yet, wrongfully, the plaintiff's engineer continued to keep my client in the case even after everyone agreed to this fact. The client's product was not even in operation at the time according to the driver's "Witness Statement" (hmmm-see a pattern here?). I am not talking about disagreeing if a burned out product was in the area of origin or the cause, I am saying this product could be reinstalled into another vehicle with only the most minimal amount of cleaning and repair (even the 12-volt wiring insulation was still intact that you could read the printed stamp information on it). So one of those pesky letters was generated and sent to both the engineer and his client, holding both parties financially responsible for any expenses for the continued involvement by my client's representatives.

Perhaps it may not be this bad in your neck of the woods, but I am finding this "eagerness to please" attitude is becoming more prevalent in my travels. Don't get me wrong, I have had the sincere privilege and honor of meeting some very good engineers and fire investigators in many states. They do a great job, in my opinion are looking for the truth (good or bad for their client), and I do hold them in high regard. But as I said before, it is a few bad apples that are causing many of these problems, resulting in the changes in the tactics manufacturers are using to defend themselves.

I wish to thank you Mr. William for a professional and informative discussion of this topic. However, I feel we have drug this through the proverbial mud here on the forum. On some things it is apparent that we both see each others points, but we don't necessarily agree. If you wish to discuss this further, I can be reached either via direct email or my phone.

Have a great weekend.

Chris