I agree with your comment that there is a problem when the investigator does not use an accepted methodology in conducting the investigation. Through my involvement in some large litigations I have found this problem is taking place with not only fire investigators, but person doing different types of failure analysis. Those experts expressing opinions on different facts about the loss must all follow the same recognized methodology in reaching a conclusion. I actually had an engineer make the statement he that of his investigations only a small fraction get involved in litigation and of those only a fraction ever see a court room and this is why he does not feel the need to verify his conclusion. There is a need for there to be a higher knowledge level of basic science and its connection to fire in the investigation community.

As a person involved in this profession, I would like to think that every individual is striving to gain knowledge and become proficient in conducting investigations, but as a fact that is not true. There will always be those at the top and those just skating by at the bottom. Most of what you have described I would put at the bottom. I do believe we are better today than we were a decade ago, and that with the research and quality of education improving the trend will continue in the right direction. Those that choose not to improve will over time be frustrated and hopefully drop from the profession and those just entering will be inspired by those who remain to work to achieve a higher level of excellence. When it becomes necessary to confront a person with a different opinion, one should not start off with personal attacks but facts for the other person to consider. There still may never be a agreement but it keep the disagreement professional.

I can tell you many investigators feel attorney’s use of 921 in challenging their methodology is not for the purpose of establishing right or wrong. The challenge is to eliminate that expert’s opinion. From this idea being placed in their mind there now begins a negative perception about 921 by the investigation community. I know this is not necessarily true, but in some cases this is an honest perception. I have found myself sitting is strategy meeting with attorneys when the first comment is not if the person’s opinion has any merit but how do we prevent this person from testifying. The next comment addresses a Daubert motion.

I still believe the way to increase the level of knowledge is through quality educational programs. The information give at these programs need to be verified by the organization sponsoring the class. Someone at this level needs to step up to the plate when the information is not acceptable and say no to it being disseminated. This is the foundation of our profession and if we want it to be strong we must first strengthen the foundation. What good is it for an attorney to his an investigator over the head with technical data indicating the opinion is wrong, when this same investigator goes to a class sponsored by a national organization and the support with the information being taught the opinion given.