Some very interesting discussion was provided in the “scene-security” thread. The most interesting stuff involved a basic conflict underlying fire investigation, and indeed, all of forensic science.

We work at the interface between science and the justice system, and need to decide which one we serve first. Most public sector investigators and most public sector laboratories work to serve the interests of the justice system. No problem there—bad guys need to be brought to justice and science can help. Private sector guys experience pressure to help their client’s case as well, whether it’s a civil case or a criminal one.

But what are the limits when you “know” the authorities have the right guy? Is it your job to help convict him or her? Or is it your job as an expert witness to correctly explain the evidence to the jury?

Is it permissible, say, to ignore inconsistent data, i.e., data that does not support the prosecution’s hypothesis? Is it okay to let defense counsel find out about factual weaknesses in the state’s case only upon cross-examination?

Is it okay to run the computer model 90 times until it comes out “right?”

Is it okay to “rule out” a particular scenario even when there is no evidence to do so, just absence of evidence that it did happen?

Is it okay to give a “rubber stamp” approval to a colleague’s flawed report, as long as they have the right guy?

If you’re not sure there is a righteous case against the defendant, should your conduct be any different that if you “know?”

It all comes down to this: Does the end justify the means?

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]