<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Fire/Arson Investigations</title>
    <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/index.php</link>
    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>EN</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:07:20 +0100</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:07:20 +0100</lastBuildDate>
    <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
    <generator>Phorum 5.1.13</generator>
    <ttl>600</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8584#msg-8584</link>
      <author>mhennessy</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Steve:
Very well stated. I believe that the 2008 edition adequately describes the proper use of the process of elimination. The only mention of negative corpus in the 08 edition that I can find is in A.18.2.5. Are we splitting hairs?
Mike H]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8584#msg-8584</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:07:20 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus -- a house without utilities</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8583#msg-8583</link>
      <author>PMK140</author>
      <description><![CDATA[20 minutes Sir Gary? 20 minutes?  To me, that represents a vote of confidence.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8583#msg-8583</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:29:20 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Negative Corpus vis a vis Forensics</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8582,8582#msg-8582</link>
      <author>Mark Goodson</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The use of what has been termed 'negative corpus' is not without precedent in forensics.

In forensic medicine, deaths are classified both as to cause of death and manner of death. The cause might be a heart attack (MI), a blow to the head (Cerebro Cranial Trauma, CCT), an electrical shock, poisoning / ingestion of poisonous substances, heart failure, respiratory failure, et al... The manner of death is one of 5 classifications: Natural, Accidental, Homicide, Suicide, or Undetermined. 

Assume that a body is found in a shallow grave, decomposed, but with hands bound, Autopsy reveals no obvious cause of death,and toxicology is negative. The cause of death is truly not known, as the corpse (corpus) is negative for the cause. However, the manner is known - homicide. Moreover, the cause of death may be listed as &quot;unspecified homicidal violence.&quot; As far as the cause, possibilities include asphyxia, traumatic asphyxia, some poisons, low current electrical shock, drowning, hyperthermia, hypothermia, and many more. The exact cause will never be forensically determined. All that can be said is that the manner of death is homicide, and that the cause is unknown OR is unspecified homicidal violence. 

In a physical system  (not a biological system), things just don't overheat and catch fire of their own volition. There has to be a reason, even if we don't find it. And thus my example earlier of an abandoned house without utilities. No meteors. No lightning. The house just doesn't catch fire without some help. 

Now assume the same house, and we find forcible entry - just like the pathologist found a shallow grave and bound hands. I have no particular heartburn with someone stating that this house burned down because of incendiary means. albeit we don't know the first material ignited. 

I just finished a trial last week in which negative corpus was used by the prosecution. The defense prevailed. I can certainly understand why it is problematic and anathema. The underlying assumption in that case was incorrect - other possibilities had NOT been eliminated. 

Can anyone  compare and contrast what the pathologists are doing with how 921 treats negative corpus?]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8582,8582#msg-8582</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:21:09 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus -- a house without utilities</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8581#msg-8581</link>
      <author>Sir Gary</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Mr Administrator

I hereby categorically state that my posting 9 March 2010 in no way intended to
suggested that our esteemed peer Pat Kennedy, CFEI, CFPS, MIFireE 
would involve himself with a prositute (for one, he wouldn't last 20 minutes).

Had it rather been a young Fire investigator who engaged Pat in a debate about the merits of 921,
and perhaps questioned the merits of a 921 Technical Committee decision (a negative corpse?) ...B)-B)-]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8581#msg-8581</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:06:26 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8580#msg-8580</link>
      <author>Sir Gary</author>
      <description><![CDATA[(If you can get hold of them) read the committee members comments on each point/vote;
(they actually make more interesting reading than the revised 921 itself) 
each issue is thoroughly debated to death by the Fire Gods we have selected to represent our profession.

We are all encouraged to submit the Fire God of our choice for election,
make submissions or stand for election ourselves.

921 : just a guide...]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8580#msg-8580</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:50:05 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Tired of all this gravity junk</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8579#msg-8579</link>
      <author>Sir Gary</author>
      <description><![CDATA[&quot;And I say use common sense. 
 If a building burns to ash and there was no heat source in the structure 
 that could cause ignition, and there was no act of God that occurred, 
 can one not say with a degree of certainty that there was human intervention 
 involved in the cause of this fire? Do you realize how you sound as an academic 
 when you say that because no one was seen human intervention can not be considered
 as the reason for ignition. 
&quot;
efc - 

There is a big difference in saying it was human intervention
 vs
'because no one was seen human intervention can not be considered'

Using Negative Corpus to insist it must be A despite no physical evidence thereof,
just because you can exclude B, L and X is irresponsible;
to admit or even suggest it could be A despite no physical evidence thereof, is justifiable,
just watch out that John or Pat doesn't then pull a C, N or Z out of the hat you didn't consider.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8579#msg-8579</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:36:47 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Application of open flame?</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8565,8578#msg-8578</link>
      <author>PMK140</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I have collected and analyzed all the data and developed the following hypothesis:

I have eliminated all other possible causes; therefore if someone believes that “negative corpus” is an acceptable fire cause determination method, that person must be of low I.Q. and/or questionable ethics.

Eliminated causes are: “ulterior motives, mental defect or disease, no actual fire investigation experience, no competent fire investigation education, no training in high school level logic, no education in the “scientific method,” head injury, lightning strike to the head, drug use, arguing just to argue, argning because Kennedy, Caroenter, Lentini et al are assholes, and basic intellectual mendacity.

What, if anything is wrong with this corollary?

[Note: this is irony]]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8565,8578#msg-8578</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:44:08 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Application of open flame?</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8565,8577#msg-8577</link>
      <author>MIKE</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Can be a big difference between an open flame and an effective heat source.  Good topic for discussion, Ted.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8565,8577#msg-8577</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:33:19 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Application of open flame?</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8565,8576#msg-8576</link>
      <author>efc</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Where the term open flame was used, I believed the intent was the heat source causing ignition.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8565,8576#msg-8576</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:21:59 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus ----27-1 is still pretty persuasive</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8575#msg-8575</link>
      <author>efc</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I agree that sometimes the right thing is not the popular thing, but it should be correct. Maybe the committee could have researched the definitions of the word and learned using them together is incorrect usage. Instead of saying the body of evidence indicates, one could say the corpus indicates.

The direction would be the path taken by Steve in that he addressed the problem with the use of the term and found a better term that better described the topic being communicated.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8575#msg-8575</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:19:07 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus ----27-1 is still pretty persuasive</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8574#msg-8574</link>
      <author>efc</author>
      <description><![CDATA[It seem you were right back in 2001. The problem appears to be the term and the definition of the term. In all definitions when the words “Corpus Delicti” are used in a phrase relates only to a crime. I think there may be agree that in majority of the fires taking place there is no crime. If this is a correct definition, then those making the comments about “Corpus Delicti” were correct.

In separating the words one finds that the word “Corpus” is defined as a collection or body of knowledge or evidence. This has a direct correlation to fire investigation. Unfortunately, the word “Delicti” is only associated with Corpus. 

There is no problem using the word Corpus when defining a body of evidence, but to use the words together is a mis-use of the words.

Steve’s suggestion of the term “Logical Conclusion” may better fit what is attempting to be communicated.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8574#msg-8574</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:07:15 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8573#msg-8573</link>
      <author>efc</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Could not be better said. &quot;Logical Conclusion&quot; is our new term.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8573#msg-8573</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:05:29 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8572#msg-8572</link>
      <author>efc</author>
      <description><![CDATA[What specific part does it violate????]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8572#msg-8572</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:01:02 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8571#msg-8571</link>
      <author>SJAvato</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Perhaps someone who obviously knows more than the rest of as can tell us just what it means to dothe job properly. What great sage can we turn to? 

I still haven't really seen anyone explain how it is illogical to believe that a fire can be ignited by an ignition source that was removed from the scene and that that ignition source, having been removed from the scene, wouldn't be found at the scene even by the greatest fire investigator. The fire is the result of a cause - I don't think that violates the scientific method - and the fire itself is proof that a heat source came in contact with a suitable fuel in the presence of sufficient oxygen.  After thorough examination; no heat source is found. It would be a violation of every scientific principle known to us lesser minds to believe that there was no ignition source. One hypothesis would be that the ignition source was removed. We can test that hypothesis a thousand times (and I have at least a few times) and every time I remove the ignition source, it is not available at the scene to identify. Don't call it&quot;negative corpus&quot; if that offends you. Don't call it &quot;process of elimination&quot; if that hurts your brain. What it is (in some cases) is a logical conclusion and, in some cases where other data is obtained, it may be logical to believe that this incident is the result of an ignition source applied to a fuel and then removed. 

I can't imagine that a reasonaably intelligent person could not see how that could happen. And how, even when you do the job correctly, you may not find that ignition source (because it isn't there. But that doesn't mean it wasn't there - saying that would violate the science now wouldn't it?)]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8571#msg-8571</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:49:40 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8570#msg-8570</link>
      <author>jgmcfps</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Bottom line.  Does negative corpus equal process of elimination?  Are the terms interchangeable? Yes/no explain]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8570#msg-8570</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:41:59 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8569#msg-8569</link>
      <author>efc</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Get off of it. No one said they do not work hard and have the best intentions in the world. It sure is a document many of them classify as the standard of the industry or standard of care for fire investigators.

Here again, one should not make a judgment unless all facts are known. I have and will continue to submit proposals. I work through the system to institute changes. I see noting wrong in stating an opinion. Not saying it is always correct, but it is my opinion.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8569#msg-8569</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:59:54 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Tired of all this gravity junk</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8568#msg-8568</link>
      <author>efc</author>
      <description><![CDATA[And I say use common sense. If a building burns to ash and there was no heat source in the structure that could cause ignition, and there was no act of God that occurred, can one not say with a degree of certainty that there was human intervention involved in the cause of this fire? Do you realize how you sound as an academic when you say that because no one was seen human intervention can not be considered as the reason for ignition.

As to the data, you are the one with the hypothesis saying &quot;often&quot; this method leads to the wrong conclusion being reached. By using the word &quot;often&quot; you yourself are saying that there are times when this method is accruate.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8568#msg-8568</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:40:50 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus ----27-1 is still pretty persuasive</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8567#msg-8567</link>
      <author>ssklar</author>
      <description><![CDATA[If I recall correctly, a certain international orgainzation, apparently speaking on behalf of its members, filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court arguing how awful applying science to fire investigatios would be.  Thankfully, that organizations opinion was rejected.

Sometimes the right thing is not the popular thing.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8567#msg-8567</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:54:59 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8566#msg-8566</link>
      <author>ssklar</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Doug Carpenter has hit the nail on the head.  Negative Corpus methodology violates the scientific method. The scientific method has been around for hundreds of years.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8566#msg-8566</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:43:40 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Application of open flame?</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8565,8565#msg-8565</link>
      <author>Ted Pagels</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hello,

I wanted to start a new thread for an easier read but it's related to the negative corpus discussions.

It was mentioned several times that without evidence of any other viable ignition source/theory that the &quot;application of an open flame&quot; could be deduced as the ONLY way a fire could start. Is this not a short-sighted ignition theory? I think many of us could start a fire, as an incendiary act or otherwise, not using an open flame. 

Or is the term &quot;open flame&quot; being used to be all encompassing of whatever device or chemical mix would be used to ignite a fire that would not leave evidence behind other than circumstantial?

Ted Pagels
FIREPROSe, LLC
Green Bay, WI]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8565,8565#msg-8565</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:14:43 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8564#msg-8564</link>
      <author>Ted Pagels</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hello,

The 28 members plus alternates do not &quot;set the standard&quot;. These individuals work long hours in developing a consensus document, a guide, not a standard,for the rest of us to read, and comment on so they can make adjustments or edits, again as a consensus for us all to consider and vote upon. Sounds like a fair process of a democracy to me. The committee is a jury of their peers.

Don't like the document or portions of it? Channel your energies to change it by submitting proposals for the committee to consider or apply/get appointed to the committee. We can either be a part of the percieved problem or a part of the solution. Be a leader and be a part of the solution.

Ted J. Pagels
FIREPROSe, LLC
Green Bay, WI]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8564#msg-8564</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:52:57 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus ----27-1 is still pretty persuasive</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8563#msg-8563</link>
      <author>John J. Lentini, CFEI</author>
      <description><![CDATA[As one of the architects of the Process of Elimination language, which first appeared in the 2001 edition of NFPA 921, I was of the opinion that it was a good compromise, and allowed for an occasional determination in the absence of finding an ignition source, when it was clear that all other potential sources other The than an open flame could be eliminated Unfortunately, certain hacks in the fire investigation profession chose to exploit the language to allow them to declare any fire incendiary as long as they did not find an accidental cause. I have had conversations with people who said, “Well, the origin is ‘clearly defined’ to me.”  I have seen origins be declared as “clearly defined” in fully fleshed over compartments, and I saw one case where a 200 by 200 foot section of an industrial occupancy was declared to be a “clearly defined origin.” That is not what we had in mind.

Here is what I said about the process of elimination in my book:(Note:any interpretations of NFPA 921 are my own opinion, and not necessarily those of the committee or NFPA)

Hypothesis testing requires that the investigator compare his or her hypothesis with all of the relevant credible data. It also requires the investigator to be willing to abandon a hypothesis if it is disproved, and to seriously question that hypothesis if the data are merely “consistent” with it.
The identification of the origin of the fire is a hypothesis. Beware of the trap of circular logic. Once an investigator has identified an origin, every potential ignition source outside of that origin is automatically “eliminated,” because only ignition sources within the area of origin could have started the fire. This type of thinking can lead to serious errors, the most common being the declaration that “Since I could find no sources of accidental ignition within the area of origin, this must have been an incendiary fire.” Such declarations are sometimes possible, but only in rare cases. For example, if there is a small fire confined to a bedroom closet, and there are no lights or wires or other devices in the closet, it may be possible to state with certainty that the ignition source was an open flame, even if no match or lighter is found. NFPA 921 allows for such a determination in cases “where the area of origin is clearly defined and all other potential heat sources at the origin can be examined and credibly eliminated.”[10]  What is not clearly defined is the phrase “clearly defined.” This ambiguity has been exploited by some investigators to allow them to state that “clearly defined” means whatever they want it to mean (ipse dixit). The intent of the passage was to allow a reasonable determination to be made when the ignition source was absent, but not to give license to simply declare a fire incendiary because no accidental cause could be found. The Technical Committee’s discussion of the issue came about when it finally attempted to address the problem of the “negative corpus” fire determination. This determination is one in which the investigator states, “I can find no accidental causes. Therefore, this fire must have been intentionally set.”

Negative corpus is shorthand for “negative corpus delicti.” The committee wisely chose not to even mention the phrase in the document to avoid giving the concept any credibility. The same section of the document gives extensive guidance on the concept of “elimination” of a potential cause and states,
Elimination, which actually involves the developing, testing and rejection of alternate hypotheses, becomes more difficult as the degree of destruction in the compartment of origin increases, and it is not possible in many cases. Whenever an investigator proposes the elimination of a particular system or appliance as the ignition source on the basis of appearance or visual observation, the investigator should be able to explain how the appearance or condition of that system or appliance would be different if it were the cause of the fire.[11] 

“Clearly defined,” in this investigator’s view, means that anyone, even someone completely untrained in the investigation of fires, could look at the damage and unhesitatingly, without fear of contradiction, point at the location and state, “that’s where the fire started.” 
Figure 4.7 shows what this author had in mind when signing off on the “clearly defined” language.  
 
In those cases where the origin of the fire is less “clearly defined,” the absence of any potential heat sources in the proposed area of origin is data. It is, in fact, data that is contradictory to the hypothesis that this is the origin, and should cause the investigator to carefully re-examine the hypothetical origin. Is there another area that could reasonably be considered the origin of the fire? Will an investigator retained by another party agree with the hypothetical origin? Certainly, in a fully involved compartment, every potential heat source within that compartment requires careful examination. Heavier damage on one side of the compartment or the other is almost certainly a result of more fuel or more ventilation, rather than the longest burning time. If there is more than one fully involved compartment, there must be credible data to allow the investigator to decide which one burned first.

The concept of credibility of data is worth exploring. According to the scientific method, if there is credible data that contradicts the hypothesis, it is necessary to discard the hypothesis and formulate a new one. In a fire scene, there will always be more data than can be assimilated into a given hypothesis, and much of this data is extraneous. Extraneous data need not be taken into account, but contradictory data may not simply be ignored. The most critical type of data, ignored at the fire investigator’s peril, is eyewitness accounts of the fire’s progress. Regardless of the investigator’s skill and experience at reading burn patterns, ten eyewitnesses who first saw the fire in a room other than where the investigator thinks it originated are probably not the ones who are mistaken. “I’ve got to call it as I see it,” is a common expression among fire investigators, but maybe they need to shift their own view just slightly, so they can see things more clearly. Although Sherlock Holmes made many gossamer leaps of logic, he was right on the mark in The Boscombe Valley Mystery when he said, “Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing, it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.”]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8563#msg-8563</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:44:01 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Interflam Conference and electrical class</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8562,8562#msg-8562</link>
      <author>Vyto Babrauskas, Ph.D.</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Fire investigators should take note of the following events to be held in Nottingham, England on the week of 5-9 July 2010.

The first three days of the week, 5-7 July, Interflam 2010 will be held. This is the largest international research conference in the fire safety field. Of special note to investigators is that the program will feature a specific session on fire investigation/forensics topics. But the whole conference should be of interest to investigators, since much of the other material will focus on fire dynamics developments that are of relevance.

The last two days, 8-9 July 2010 is an event with separate registration, but equally of importance to investigators. The Principles of Electrical Fires will be taught by Vyto Babrauskas. This is the only course on electrical aspects of fire investigation which is based on developing a comprehensive scientific understanding of electrical fires and originates from the research work done to develop the Ignition Handbook.

For details and registration information on both of these events, please see:
http://www.intersciencecomms.co.uk/html/events/if10a.htm
If you are just interested in the Electrical Fires course, then specific details are at:
http://www.intersciencecomms.co.uk/html/events/pe01.htm]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8562,8562#msg-8562</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:23:18 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus ----Report of Unanimous Vote 28-0 In Error</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8561#msg-8561</link>
      <author>Admin-Road</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Pat,

Its all good you know that.  Sometimes the humor and sarcasm doesn't come across the posting very well.  Some people are good reads on my implied tone, but many are not.  :P

Chris]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8561#msg-8561</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:42:26 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus ----Report of Unanimous Vote 28-0 In Error B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8560#msg-8560</link>
      <author>Admin-Road</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Pat are you looking at a different vote or is EFC?  EFC has reported the quote saying it was NOT 28-0  it was 27-1.  Please explain this difference in facts.

&quot;If one can not say what they mean, then how can they mean what they say&quot;.  Chris Bloom circa 2000.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8560#msg-8560</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:39:05 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus -- a house without utilities</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8559#msg-8559</link>
      <author>Admin-Road</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Mark:

Coincidentally sounds like you are looking at the foreclosed and vacant house fire that happened around the corner from my house two nights ago.  The information in the news and neighborhood is near identical to what you posted.  My kids and I were watching it from the back deck.

chris]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8559#msg-8559</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:36:47 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Tired of all this gravity junk</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8558#msg-8558</link>
      <author>dcarpenter</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The point is that the use of such a methodology is fundamentally wrong. The wording reflects the reality that you could reach an accurate determination for the wrong reasons. That is a fundamental outcome that is independent of the use of &quot;negative corpus&quot;.

I would propose a test. Forget about the consensus of the committee members of NFPA 921 for the moment.  Take the methodology of &quot;negative corpus&quot; and present it to other forensic communities in the context of its application to forensic investigations and see what their response to this is.

In addition, what data would you put forth that would support the use of &quot;negative corpus&quot; in the context of the Scientific Method?]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8558#msg-8558</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:55:01 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus ----Report of Unanimous Vote 28-0 In Error</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8557#msg-8557</link>
      <author>PMK140</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Chris,

Don't let me get ya down. ... I for one appreciate most of what you do. ;)]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8557#msg-8557</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:48:34 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Tired of all this gravity junk</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8556#msg-8556</link>
      <author>efc</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Ok, so when the comitte states that the results from using this method of determining the cause of a fire &quot;often&quot; leads to a wrong conclusion, there are no facts or data to support this conclusion.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8556#msg-8556</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:39:46 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Fire/Arson Investigations] Re: Negative Corpus ----Report of Unanimous Vote 28-0 In Error B.S.</title>
      <link>http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8555#msg-8555</link>
      <author>PMK140</author>
      <description><![CDATA[you are correct.  I misread the ROP results.  The results were 27-1.  This does not change the cowardlyness of the anonymous post.]]></description>
      <category>Fire/Arson Investigations</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,8394,8555#msg-8555</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:37:03 +0100</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
