It's not just a supervisor issue. I was employed for the TxSFMO from 1992 thru January 2005, I left as the Chief Investigator for the Central TX District and went into the private sector. I reviewed/read reports (not to be mistaken for peer review) of investigator's assigned to that region. I would also say that as an investigator or as one of the chief investigators I never had anyone within the fire/arson division of TxSFMO attempt to infuence my opinion but it was those outside the division, possibly because of division rivalries who attempted such infuence upon the SFM and I never succumbed to such pressure or allowed it to go to those in my district. I brought this up because I do beleive it is a real situation for many in the fire investigation profession and it goes beyond that. It was once explained to me this way... Isn't it a shame that your profession is regulated or influenced by those who know nothing about what is that you do. I have found there is some degree of truth to this both in the public and private sectors of this profession. And, that's why we try to educate those who know nothing other than to them an undetermined fire cause means you can't figure it out. This also includes the private sector client. Although we may understand the investigator wasn't able to exclude other possible causes bringing any one hypothesis to a certain degree of certainty above the others, they don't understand. An example of those ignorant in the methodology of fire investigation goes something like this. If the coffee pot is where the fire started and probably is the only thing in the origin why can't you just say it started the fire and call it what it is...accidental. Thus the education begins as to why not.

I know I'm preaching to the chior but I saw it kind of glossed over in the previous posts and wanted to get some feedback as to others experiences regarding what I think is potentially an underlying reason as to some making unsubstantiated determinations that upon further review have no scientific basis.

MIJ I have read many of the posts you've made on this forum regarding the subject of 921 as a standard. You defintely have your opinion set and list your reasons often. I don't know that I disagree with them all, but the fact is there is an NFPA standard relating to fire investigation and that is NFPA 1033 which contains the madatory language Mr. Munger spoke of. NFPA 1033 deals with essential job requirements and functions of the fire investigator.

1.2* Purpose.
The purpose of this standard shall be to specify the minimum job performance requirements for service as a fire investigator in both the private and public sectors.
1.2.1 The intent of this standard is not to restrict any jurisdiction from exceeding the minimum requirements.
1.2.2 Job performance requirements for each duty are the tasks an individual must be able to perform in order to successfully carry out that duty; however, they are not intended to measure a level of knowledge. Together, the duties and job performance requirements define the parameters of the job of fire investigator.

The nuts & bolts of the whole argument is this: a standard specifies the minimum JPR's and 1.2.2 further states that JPR's are not intended to measure the level of knowledge regarding any individual.

NFPA 921 has been shown or proven to be the standard of care as it is applied by the fire investigation profession and the court system. It does define or set out an appropirate level of knowledge for the investigator whether public or private to begin his/her career with. It is with this base knowledge the investigator should expand upon never ceasing to educate himself.