First of all, I don't accept the premise that lazy private investigators are that way because they used to be lazy public investigators. There can be lazy private investigators who were never public investigators. In fact, there can be bad fire "experts" who were never investigators of any sort. People (private, public, former public, etc.) allow bias to creep into their opinions when they do not critically evaluate themselves. For example, ask "Am I making a decision based on saving my company money? (private sector), "Am I calling this an arson to 'make' a big case ? (public sector) "Am I trying to build a reputation based on getting a 'guilty' person off? Or an 'innocent' person convicted?" (pick a side.) These are very difficult questions for a person to answer honestly. Silly, naive me; I still believe that most investigators have good intentions. If they did not believe a person guilty, they wouldn't charge them. If there wasn't "good faith" they wouldn't deny the claim. But some people have been absolutely certain and absolutely wrong. Again, 921 will not solve all of these problems because the interpretation of the data is what is key in a fire investigation. While 921 provides excellent guidance for interpreting some data, it doesn't provide all of the answers for all scenes (or even any specific scene for that matter.)

I don't think it is fair to generalize with regard to any group. Not all public investigators are bad or lazy. The same holds true for private sector investigators. Each has a role to play and we will all get along better when we empathize a little and recognize the role that the other side plays. I don't agree with everything that everyone posts on this site, but I recognize that everyone approaches the problem from their experiences and provides a perspective that perhaps I don't have. That can only make me better (or bitter?)


Steve