I am sorry also. I really though if there was a reason, such as it would take away from the quality of the document, there would have been a more educated response. I can only believe you disagree with the definition of the term used in the article supplied by John.

I remember at the committee meeting when there was a term to be used that was not specifically defined in 921 or other referenced text, the definition was then placed in 921.Here we have a two word term, "Comparison Sample." It is not specifically defined in the text of the document or any other document associated with 921.The intent of the term is to describe a type of sample that the investigator believes will be different in that it will not have any material that would relate to the liquid accelerant believed to be in the other samples. Compare this idea to John's definition.

Can you are anyone tell me a good reason for not putting John's definition in the document.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group