Volume 1 Number 2

Fire Debris
Analysis is our
Only Business!
PRESIDENTS GREETING
vertisers will receive a
ten-percent discount on
advertisements.
Private fire investigators
and engineering mem-
bers will be able to have
their resumes, contact
information and links to
their websites listed on
our website. This will be
Carter D. Roberts, Sr.
president, ifiri beneficial to insurance
companies, lawyers and
others who may desire to
find vetted experts inter-
Friends and nationally.
Supporters
We are having a school
in the Dallas area for the
We hope that you en- Professional Fire Inves-
joy this second compli- tigator (PFI) certifica-
mentary issue of Fire tion the last week of No-
Insight. If you enjoy the vember. The last week
magazine and feel that it of March 2013, we will
will be beneficial to you have the school for Fo-
and your career, then rensic Fire Investigator
we invite you to join the (FFI) also in Dallas. We
International Fire In- hope that you will plan
vestigation Research to attend both schools.
Institute. The FFI certification will
require that you already
When you join the IFIRI hold a CFI, CFEI or PFI
you will receive a cer- certification.
tificate of membership,
suitable for framing. The The Forensic Fire In-
magazine alone is worth vestigator certification is
the $75.00 annual mem- designed for those who
bership, but as a mem- are already an expert in
ber you will also receive their field. The course
discounts greater than will cover the insurance
the cost of membership contract, policy viola-
at our training seminars tions, subrogation and
and certification schools. other issues important to
In addition, member ad- insurance companies. It
11
is designed for private in-
vestigators, SIU person-
nel, engineers and others
who desire to learn more
about the insurance in-
dustry.
In this school, we will
reveal secrets of how to
become a successful na-
tional player in the fire
and forensic investiga-
tion business. The Foren-
sic Fire Investigator cer-
tification will give you
a significant edge over
your competitors who
have not had this type of
training. Insurance com-
panies need to know that
the experts they hire are
extremely familiar with
all insurance issues, es-
pecially those possessing
litigation potential.
We look forward to your
becoming a member of
the International Fire
Investigation Research
Institute, and I look
forward to seeing you at
some of our seminars.
Best regards,
Carter Roberts
about carter d. roberts
Carter D. Roberts is the founder,
P r e side nt a nd C EO of t he
I nternational Fire Investiga-
tion Research Institute, Inc., an
international education, training,
certification and research company
for fire investigators and other
forensic experts. He holds a Bach-
elor of Science in Management and
an MBA from Samford University.
Carter has written and published
numerous articles concerning fire
investigation and has over thirty-
seven years of investigation expe-
rience.
Over a period of twenty-four years
Mr. Roberts was the President and
CEO of each of the two largest pri-
vate fire investigation companies
in the world and was the founder
of one of them. He has over thirty-
three years of experience in man-
agement of fire and forensic experts
and has been battle-tested many
times in court as a fire expert as
well as having been challenged in
Daubert hearings.
Carter started his career as a fire-
fighter and later became a police
homicide detective. He then headed
up the fire investigation unit for the
police and fire departments in that
city. In addition, he was a business
instructor at Lawson State Com-
munity College in Birmingham,
Alabama, for two years.
Carter is an IAAI-Certified Fire
Investigator and is a Certified Fire
& Explosion Investigator, a Certified
Vehicle Fire Investigator and a Certified
Fire Investigator Instructor by the
National Association of Fire Inves-
tigators.
Carter can be reached at the Inter-
national Fire Investigation Re-
search Institute in Dallas, Texas.
His email is: croberts@ifiri.com.
Telephone 1-855-755-8600, 214-
753-8600. Fax 214-753-8601. Cell
214-725-1879.
 Bevin Bros. Mfg. An AMERICAN Tradition since 1832

On May 27, 2012, this 6th generation family business was dealt a heavy blow. Despite the valiant efforts of more
than 200 firefighters, the historic 19th century factory was completely destroyed. The Bevin family have been
making bells on the same piece of land in East Hampton, CT, since the company began in 1832. For 180 years
Bevin Bros has appreciated the patronage and loyal following of thousands of customers who have valued the
beauty and sound of a quality American-made bell. In Its A Wonderful Life, the bell that gave Clarence his wings
is a Bevin bell. The bell that opened and closed the New York Stock Exchange for many years was a Bevin Bell.
These bells and millions more have become part of the fabric of America, the sounds of our history. As they work
to emerge from the ashes, they are overwhelmed and grateful for the offers of support that have come from far
and wide. The rebuilding has begun, and the bells will once again ring in Belltown USA. For more information
and updates, please visit www.bevinbells.com
2
 IN THIS ISSUE . . .
Volume 1 Number 2 Summer 2012

F E AT U R E S
Objectivity-Part I, Accuracy of the Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Is Your Hypothesis Defendable?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Misconceptions-Part II, Spalling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A Perfect Storm Brewing for the Fire Investigator
in Court-Part I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
COLUMNS
Presidents Greeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Professional Fire Investigator Seminar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Application for Professional Fire Investigator Certificate . . 12
Application for Forensic Fire Investigator Certificate . . . . . 13
IFIRI Forum Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Note from the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Membership Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Tidbit Tips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Your Success InSIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
C L A S S I F I E D S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
S E M I N A R S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A D V E R T I S E R S I N D E X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

About the Cover: Volume 1 Number 2

Volume 1 Number 1

The photo on the cover and the one

on the left were taken by r.j. phil,
photographer from East Hamption,
Connecticut. The fire is of the Bevin
Bell Factory that caught on fire May
ROSS BROGAN

27, 2012. No one was at the factory

at the time of the fire. It is still under
investigation.

3
DIRECTORS
Benjamin Armstrong, B.S., has been directly involved in the
area of fire investigation since its beginning in 1976. Serving
as President of Armstrong Forensic Laboratory, Inc., since
2006, Ben has dedicated his leadership position to ensuring
that the origin and cause industry has access to and receives
the highest-quality, court-ready, analytical data and technical
support services available. Ben has led implementation of a
variety of client-based services including specialty field testing
kits for fire investigations.
Benjamin Armstrong
Bens overall direction and vision for Armstrong continues
usa
the family tradition of providing the most current tools to the
fire investigator which includes understanding of and accreditation in outside disciplines
that have provided and continue to provide unique investigative support to the field of
fire investigation. Environmental industrial hygiene as well as general chemical analysis
have proven indispensable to the up-and-coming investigative techniques utilized by fire
investigators.
Ross Brogan, AFSM, MA, CFI/IAAI, is a retired firefighter who
served for 38 years in the New South Wales (NSW) Fire Brigades,
retiring at Inspector rank. He was attached to the Fire Investigation
Unit as an investigator for sixteen years. In 1987 he completed the
NSW Police Detective Training class. In 2001 he was attached to a
NSW Police Strike Force, investigating bushfires throughout NSW.
Since 2002 he has been an adjunct lecturer with Charles Sturt
University, teaching classes in fire investigation to students from
all over the world. Twice a year he conducts a face-to-face class
Ross Brogan on basic fire investigation for students from fire service, police and
australia
private industry. Ross runs his own small consulting business.
Ross is a member of the International Association of Arson
Investigators (IAAI) and on the IAAI Fire Investigator Standards Committee and a member
of the Editorial Board of the Fire & Arson Investigator magazine. He is also a life member,
and committee member, of the NSW Association of Fire Investigators and member of the
Victoria, Queensland, UK and Eire chapters.
Marco Dorresteijn is a qualified forensic crime scene investigator
and a certified arson and fire investigator. He spent 30 years
in law enforcement and served as a crime scene investigator
and fire and arson investigator. He also managed homicide/
crime scene investigations. After 30 years working in the field he
now lectures on forensic crime scene investigation at the Police
Academy of the Netherlands. Mr. Haun belongs to various organizations some of which include the National Fire
He has been involved in numerous initiatives in developing
stronger communications and co-operation between the public
Marco Dorresteijn and private fire investigators in the Netherlands, and he began
netherlands a network Kwaliteits Kring Brand Onderzoek (Quality Network
for Fire Investigation). This group has regular meetings, shares
learning outcomes from fire and explosion investigations and produces best practice advice
for members. As chairman of this network, he has facilitated a closer co-operation between
the Dutch Police and Dutch Fire Service in relation to fire investigations.
Marco is currently vice chair of the European Network for Fire Investigation and
Prevention (ENFIP). ENFIP is focused on bringing professionals together to promote,
facilitate and stimulate the exchange of good practice and training in fire investigation and
prevention through an information and knowledge sharing network in Europe. The same
philosophy extends to like-minded professionals on a global level as well.
In addition to his work with the Network, he sits on a number of other boards in the
Netherlands who work to improve quality and knowledge amongst fire investigators and to
stimulate cooperation between them.
Marco is delighted to represent ENFIP on the IFIRI Board and looks forward to a closer
co-operation between both groups going forward.
4
Ken Goodnight has been in the investigative field for over 35
years. During his career, he developed and managed fire and
fraud investigation programs for both U.S. and Global insurance
companies. He served as President of Investigative Resources
Global, a national company providing fire, insurance fraud and
security investigations to the insurance industry. He also founded
and served as Chief Executive Officer of Strategic Investigations
Management Group in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ken is an internationally recognized speaker and author on
Ken Goodnight
usa
insurance fraud, arson-for-profit, SIU management and major
case management. Ken was a consultant and instructor for
the U.S. Treasury Departments Bureau of ATF in connection with arson-for-profit training
programs. He was one of the founders of the Insurance Arson for Profit school which was
associated with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. He previously served on
the Board for the Insurance Committee for Arson Control and the International Association
of Arson Investigators (IAAI). He was a founding Director of the National Association of
Special Investigation Units, now recognized as the International Association of Special
Investigation Units (IASIU). He was also a 30-year member of the American Society of
Industrial Security (ASIS).
Gary L. Haun Jr. is a second generation Fire Investigator. Mr.
Haun is a two-time graduate of the National Fire Academy
graduating first from the Arson Investigation course and a sec-
ond time as an Expert Witness Testimony Trainer. Mr. Haun is
also a Certified Fire Investigator through the IAAI as well as a
Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator, Certified Vehicle Fire
Investigator, Certified Fire Investigator Instructor through the
National Association of Fire Investigators (NAFI) and is cer-
tified in Burn Pattern Recognition through the Public Agency
Gary Haun, Jr. Training Council.
usa
Mr. Haun is a Certified Fire Investigator through the Virginia
Department of Fire Programs as well as a Certified Fire Investigator in two different cat-
egories through the National Pro Board. Mr. Haun is also registered as a Private Investi-
gator through the Department of Criminal Justices Services for Virginia. Mr. Haun began
his Fire Investigation career in the early 80s as an Evidence Tech. He began his formal
career in Fire Investigation in 1987 at Southern Fire Analysis, Inc. (SFA) in Nashville, TN.
He has investigated all types of fires for the insurance Industry to include large losses,
commercial, residential, vehicles, heavy equipment, marine and total losses requiring
content documentation. He opened his own company in 1997, Fire Analysis Consulting
Group LLC serving Virginia and the East Coast.
Mr. Haun has investigated approximately 3,000 plus fire scenes in his career of which
some 750 were vehicles. He has attended and participated in approximately 122 semi-
nars, training opportunities, and has taken well over 2,500 hours of training in his career.
Academy Alumni Association various IAAI Chapters including his home Chapter of Ten-
nessee. Mr. Haun has also taught courses of instruction in Fire Investigation from 2001
to current. Mr. Haun has lectured at major insurance companies, Chesterfield County
Advanced Science Program, Fire Investigation Seminars and various Claims Associa-
tion Meetings.
Kelly Johnsons profession was built from an Associates De-
gree in Law Enforcement and a Bachelor of Applied Arts & Sci-
ences, with a major area of study in Criminal Justice. After eight
years in law enforcement, he then moved into the field of fire in-
vestigation. Six of his eight years were as a detective sergeant,
with his last two years as the city fire/arson investigator.
Mr. Johnson participated in the live burn testing of more than
a dozen structures and over thirty automobiles for the purpose
of training and education. He has assisted in coordinating and
Kelly Johnson presenting training to hundreds of insurance professionals, pub-
usa lic safety personnel, and college students over the last decade.
He has proctored the Certified Fire & Explosion Investigator test
to dozens of public safety officials. Additionally, Mr. Johnson is the only individual that
has been authorized to proctor the Certified Vehicle Fire Investigator designation issued
by the National Association of Fire Investigators.
Kelly Johnson is the founder and principal investigator of Forensic Fire Facts, Inc.
 Darle L. McClintock, CFEI, CFI, is a Certified Fire Investigator
and Canine Handler and has over 30 of years experience serv-
ing as a firefighter, fire inspector, fire investigator and canine
handler, spending 21 years with the Texas State Fire Marshals
Office (SFMO). During his tenure with the SFMO, he served
as Director of Field Operations, Director of the Fire Investiga-
tions Division and Director of the Fire/Life Safety Inspections
Division. He is currently a commissioned Texas Peace Officer
Darle L. McClintock through the Hays County Fire Marshals Office. He serves as
usa the Chair of the Board of Directors for the
Central Texas Fire Investigators Associa-
tion and is on the Board of Directors for the Canine Accelerant De-
tection Canine Association.
Darle is a licensed Private Investigator in the state of Texas.
He is the principal owner of Vector Investigative Services, a com-
pany specializing in the use of canines to locate ignitable liquid. His
canine partner is Jack, a five year old Belgian Malinois from the
Netherlands, who has a passive alert and is rewarded with a toy. Jack
usa
David Noble, CFI MIFireE MIAAI. David spent 16 years with the
New Zealand Fire Service before establishing his own consultancy
in early 2002. He holds qualifications from the Institution of Fire
Engineers (UK), is an IAAI Certified Fire Investigator (USA), and
is listed with the NBFSPQ as qualified in accordance with its
Standards. He has undertaken training in fire dynamics and fire
engineering, as well as qualifying as a wildfire investigator with
the New Zealand National Rural Fire Authority.
He holds a Certificate of Proficiency in Forensic Science from
David Noble Auckland University, has completed a Police Intelligence Analysis
new zealand
Course, and has a specialty interest in offender profiling. He has
appeared in the District and High Courts as an expert witness,
and has provided testimony at prosecutions for fire-related crimes, as well as assisting with
civil litigation cases.
Gareth W. Roberts, BSc (Hons), MSc, DipCSE, PGCE,
Grad.I.Fire.E, MInstLM, MIfL. Gareth joined the British Army in
1977.
On retiring from the British Army, Gareth was accepted into the
UK Police Service and joined the Crime Scene Unit. He was one
of the first CSIs in the UK to be awarded a university qualification
in crime scene science. During his service he covered all types of
crime scenes including counter-terrorism, fatal fires, murder and
kidnapping. He retired from the police service as a Crime Scene
Gareth Roberts
england
Manager and Force Forensic Trainer.
As part of the UK Governments Arson Control Forum, Gareth
assisted with the development of a national qualification base. He is a qualified police train-
er, military instructor and registered Further Education teacher and as such has particular
interest in teaching methodologies.
Gareth holds an Honours degree in Policing, a Masters degree in Forensic Archaeology,
a Diploma in Crime Scene Science and a Post Graduate Certificate in Education, along with
his professional qualifications.
As a private consultant Gareth now delivers training and operational services all over the
world and currently has contracts in Africa, Middle East and the UK.
5
FIRE INSIGHT is published four times per year in Spring, Summer, Fall and
Winter. Annual dues for membership in the organization are $75 which includes
a subscription to FIRE INSIGHT.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to FIRE INSIGHT, International Fire
Investigation Research Institute, Inc., 223 E. Greenbriar Lane, Dallas, Texas
75203-1013.
FIRE INSIGHT is the official publication of the International Fire Investigation
Research Institute, Inc. The publication is solely an educational and
informational aid to members working in the professions of fire investigation
and other forensic sciences.
Articles herein express the views and opinions of the authors, which are not
necessarily those of the International Fire Investigation Research Institute,
Inc., or its editors. Editor reserves the right to accept or reject any article or
advertisement submitted for publication.
An advertisement in the FIRE INSIGHT does not constitute, and shall not be
interpreted as, an endorsement of the advertiser or the product.
Authorization to photocopy articles or to reprint in other publications must
be obtained from IFIRI Corporate Office. All rights are strictly reserved, and
reproduction in whole or in part is expressly prohibited without prior written
permission from the publisher.
How to Submit an Article for Publication
Articles for FIRE INSIGHT will be peer reviewed prior to being published.
Authors will be notified if there are areas within the article that need additional
clarification, that may not conform to fire investigation standards or that need
changing for the well being of the readership.
All articles should be original and unpublished in any other magazine, journal,
etc. If the article has been previously published approval must be obtained, by
the author, for reprinting and be accepted by the peer reviewers.
After the article has been peer reviewed the author will receive written notification
regarding its status. If editing is required, other than punctuation and grammatical
errors, the article will be returned for corrections.
When submitting an article please send in a word document with all graphics
and pictures as separate files. Indicate in the article where the graphics or
photos are intended to go. Please be sure to include a biography and recent
photo with the article.
Articles can be e-mailed to info@marketinggraphics.biz. If you are e-mailing
the article please put the title of the article in the subject line of the e-mail. If
you are mailing the article you can send it to the address below.
Please include all contact information in either your e-mail or mail submissions.
FIRE INSIGHT
c/o Marketing Graphics
443 Colony St.
Meriden, Connecticut 06451
 1200 400

By Edward G. Roberts, cfi

PART I
Recently I had a conversation with an attorney that underlined the need for better dialog about the role of objectivity in fire investigation.
The exchange went like this:

Attorney: What is the most important tool available to the fire investigator today?

Edward: The mind.

Attorney: Well, that doesnt count

Edward: Excuse me? Did you say the mind doesnt count?

Attorney: Were not talking about the mind, were talking about tools the fire investigator uses to determine the causeuh,
the origin of a fire.

Edward: The mind is the most important tool he can use!

Attorney: We assume he already uses it. Its there. That goes without saying.

dward: No, it goes with saying! There is nothing more dangerous than an undisciplined, misdirected mind engaged in a
E
comparative science with the balance of someones fate on the line!

Actually, that last bit is what I woke up later wishing I had said.
I wont bore you with the circuitous route the rest of the conversation
took; it is enough to know that this attorney believes the mind to be a
tool that just exists and needs no work to keep in shape. This is not a
rare mindset. After all, our minds have always been there for us. And
in a profession that is all about continuing education we fill our minds
on a daily basis with information about fire investigation. But if all OBJECTIVITY is how we aim our investigations accurately.
of that knowledge about fire science and investigations is our rifle,
burn patterns and other data our ammunition, then objectivity is how
we aim. You wouldnt dream of going hunting without first sighting
in your rifle. So why would an investigator go into the field without
first making sure his mind is objective? To explore that question let
us look at what objectivity really is.

Objective means without bias or prejudice; disinterested; of, re-

lating to, or based on externally verifiable phenomena, as opposed to
6
an individuals perceptions, feelings, or intention.1 Being objective is the only way we can reach objective facts, which
are truths that are independent of human knowledge, understanding, perception, or interpretation. This is the essence
of how an investigators mind must always work: independent of individual perceptions or personal emotions. But ob-
jectivity is a condition, not a state of being. It is not a set of facts or a flowchart to be memorized, but rather a way of
thinking, of looking at the world. It is a way of life that must be consciously pursued just as doing right or eating healthy,
and not left to going without saying. Thinking about objectivity once will do no more for your future ability to be
objective than lifting weights once is going to make you a bodybuilder. Lifting weights once wont
make you a bodybuilder.
Everyone wrestles with bias; it is a corollary of life. Its origins range from family and social influences to educa- Reading about objectivity
tion, age, and life experiences. The key to managing bias is to first recognize that it exists. Read the following, then ask wont make you objective.
yourself if perhaps you may be susceptible to some type of bias:

Your coughing and hacking coworker complains of having a cold while smoking her fourth cigarette of the morning
Your new preacher is also a used car salesman
The babysitter arrives wearing black nail polish and lipstick
Your daughters date shows up at your door adorned with face piercings
The couple moving in next door are wearing a burqa and dishdasha

Did any of these statements trigger an immediate emotion in you? Could they not have? The fact that one or more of them did is not neces-
sarily wrong. It is a defense mechanism based upon personal experience, social mores, and logic trains, or what is more commonly referred to
as common sense - rudimentary and untested cause-and-effect evaluations. But none of these has a place in fire investigation, so the logical
conclusion is to eliminate them. But how?

It may not be possible. There are scores of studies linking higher education levels with less bias and prejudice (and a corresponding number
linking bias and prejudice directly to higher education levels), but age may be the biggest enemy of all. As we get older we gain more knowledge
and experience and tend to dig our heels into what we know and believe. In other words, we get hard-headed and closed-minded, to differing
degrees. This is the bias of age and experience, that what we know to be true - what we have in the past accepted - is true. Sir Francis Bacon
described this phenomenon thusly: Men become attached to certain particular sciences and speculations,
Can you eliminate bias
either because they fancy themselves the authors and inventors thereof, or because they have bestowed the
or ignore the face piercing? greatest pains upon them and become most habituated to them.2 You may have heard this put a different
way on fire scenes: Ive done so many of these fires, I dont need to dig this one out.

Small, seemingly insignificant influencers can have huge impacts throughout the course of an investiga-
tion when we think too early that we know what they mean. They may start out very small, but affect every
decision or analysis thereafter. Consider the case of your daughters new boyfriend. Once you see the face
piercings, are you even going to hear his name? Did he have a firm handshake or weak? What does he do
for a living? What church does he attend? How likely are you to ask about these issues, hear the answers, or
even care? Your bias based upon the piercings has affected every aspect of your interaction with the young
man. This can apply to the other examples presented as well. And what if one of them experiences a fire?
What if an adjuster calls you and asks you to investigate the fire that started in the television set? Or if
a manufacturer calls you in a tither because someone has blamed the fire on his finely engineered product?
Do these scenarios create biases (potentially classified as confirmation bias)? How will a false start affect
the rest of your investigation?

Nay, it is obvious that when a man runs the wrong way, the more active and swift he is, the further he will go astray.
Sir Francis Bacon2

This statement perfectly expresses how critical it is for investigators to start and continue down the right path. It means starting out and
continuing on our journey objectively. Lets look at some steps that will help us do so.

ELIMINATE EMOTION

The first step in maintaining objectivity is to keep a mind free from bias and open to possibilities. This means eliminating emotion from the
process, for emotional grips are often stronger than logic and reason. Do not mistake this for being cold to the people who experienced or were
affected by the fire thats just being inhuman. Removing emotion from the process means not getting emotionally invested in the outcome of
the investigation, and that is no easy task. The best way to start is to keep in mind that we are investigating fires, not people. While the human
factor cannot be ignored in the course of an investigation, the first step we make is to analyze a scene. The owners name, address, history, em-
ployment, financial situation, and appearance have nothing to do with the task at hand. When we separate the fire from the people involved we
take the first step down the right path. There is only one chance to look at a fire objectively, and thats by starting with the chemical reaction.

The same is true with each and every fire, whether it was a laminar, premixed flame or a turbulent, diffuse fire: it reacted without emotion
or bias, totally independent of precipitous judgment or prejudice. To understand its trail we have to understand and act and react just like the
fire unbiased and without emotion.

While this looks simple on paper, the reality is investigators often get emotional about fire. Beyond the psychological indulgence some
seem to have, the results of a fire can often cause an emotional reaction in an investigator. It is difficult not to be affected by the death of a child

7
or a firefighter. But it is important to remember that the fire did not act in malice or with the intention of harming anyone or anything. It had no
intention at all because it was merely a chemical reaction, just like any one of the trillions that occur around and inside of you each and every
day. This is not meant to diminish the often tragic results of fire; it is to make sure those effects dont alter your understanding of their cause.

I DONT KNOW

Once the investigator is resolved to investigate a fire, the first words out of his mouth should be I dont know. That can be a difficult
phrase for us to utter. After all, we are paid to be experts, the holders of knowledge, providers of answers. But understand that there is no shame
in not knowing. It is quite different than not understanding or not being equipped to discover the facts. Knowing is a condition, like being objec-
tive, one that has to be worked at honestly and completely on every investigation. To provide accurate answers about any one particular fire, we
must start at the bottom. We must start from a position of knowing nothing about the event, and very conscious of accepting as true only that
which we know evidently to be so. We must begin at I dont know.

Starting at I dont know seems logical enough, but how long do we stay there? As long as we are able. The negatives associated with
a fire scene (no fire damage at the service entrance, no severe weather or natural disaster at the time of the fire, etc.) are not the most danger-
ous potential influencers. These indicate where the fire did not originate or what could not have caused it. Rather, the indicators that seem to
substantiate our developing hypotheses are those that need to be looked at with a critical eye. Otherwise, they may influence us to the point of
being blinded to other possibilities. This is the flip-side of keeping an open mind when it begins to close in on one possibility, it begins to
close the door on others.

Let us look at a box of Legos, the interconnecting

block toy. Consider each one of those colored pieces as data
on a fire scene. Each piece a different burn pattern, fuel load,
ventilation factor, or eye-witness account. When the box is
poured out we see a pile of pieces and immediately begin
to figure out what the final product might be. Two wings,
a couple of wheels, horizontal stabilizer, some lights an
airplane. From that point forward, every piece we pick up Are you prepared to reach the truth?
is going to be shoehorned into making an airplane (expec- Or force a different outcome.
tation bias). This phenomenon is related to the concept Sir What is your first impression when looking
Francis Bacon labeled the Idol of the Tribe: The Human at these parts?
understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws
all things else to support and agree with it.2 This situation is not reserved for the poorly trained, the
unintelligent, or the unscientific. It is human nature, and it is easy to succumb to. And, if we let go of
I dont know too early, we end up with an airplane where a helicopter was meant to be.

Some people will never learn anything because they understand everything too soon.
Alexander Pope

Once we know something, we stop asking questions, and then we lose the ability to learn. The earlier you stop saying I dont know, the
earlier you stop asking questions. The earlier you stop asking questions, the earlier you stop learning about the incident. And the earlier your
investigation ends and case-building begins. That is when we end up with an airplane where a helicopter belongs with a few pieces leftover
to toss.

In Part II, we will discuss the model of The Scientific Method we have been conditioned to use and evaluate its suitability in fire inves-
tigation.

Bibliography
1) Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, 2004.
2) The Worlds Great Thinkers, Man and the Universe: The Philosophers of Science, Random House. New York 1947.

OBJECTIVITY: ACCURACY OF THE MIND

Edward G. Roberts is founder and president of Firensics, Inc., a firm based in the
Dallas-Fort Worth (Texas) Metroplex specializing in fire origin and cause investigations.
He holds a CFI through the IAAI, and CFEI, CFII, and CVFI through NAFI. Edward
has more than a decade of experience as a fire investigator and property & casualty
adjuster licensed in five states. He has been battle-tested in court, has extensive
deposition and mediation experience, and his work has appeared in numerous
publications. Edward can be contacted at eroberts@firensics.com or through the
company website www.firensics.com.

8
9
 Professional Fire Investigator Seminar
November 26-30, 2012
Dallas, Texas
Register now at www.ifiri.com

Mike Giacco
Course Outline: Location:
F Fire Science, Fire Dynamics, Behavior, Crowne Plaza Dallas Near Galleria-Addison
Chemistry and Physics. 14315 Midway Road
F Objectivity: The Critical Element. Addison, Texas 75001
F Origin & Cause Investigation. Room Rate: $85.00
(Be sure to reference the IFIRI Seminar)
Safety at the Scene
For hotel reservations call Crowne Plaza
Fire Pattern Analysis
972.980.8877
Scene Examination
or
Evidence Collection and Preservation
visit their website at
Documentation
www.cpgalleria-nr.crowneplaza.com
F Fire Scene Reconstruction and
Methodology.
Seminar Registration:
F Motives and Psychology of Fire Setters.
You can register by calling 855.755.8600 toll
F Basic Electricity and Analysis of Electrical
free or by visiting our website at
Fire Causes.
www.ifiri.com
F Explosion Dynamics.
F Vehicle Fire Investigation.
F Wildfire Investigations. Seminar Cost:
Members - $495.
F Report Writing.
Non-members - $595.
Photography
Diagrams
Words to Avoid Certification:
The Professional Fire Investigator Certification is
F Relationships between Public and Private
knowledge based and requires passing a compre-
Sector Fire Investigators.
hensive test. Testing will be offered at the conclu-
F Deposition and Court Testimony.
sion of the seminar. Certification fee is $115. for
members and $200. for non-members.
10
11
 International Fire Investigation Research Institute
Professional Fire Investigator
223 East Greenbriar Lane
Dallas, Texas 75203-1013
214-753-8600
APPLICATION FOR PROFESSIONAL FIRE INVESTIGATOR CERTIFICATION
Note: The Professional Fire Investigator Certification is knowledge based and requires passing a comprehensive test.
IFIRI does not exclude anyone from applying and taking the test as long as the applicant has not been convicted
of any crime involving moral turpitude.

NAME: DATE______________________

DATE OF BIRTH: PLACE OF BIRTH ______________________________

DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER ______________________________STATE (PROVINCE) _______________

ARE YOU AN IFIRI MEMBER? YES ______ NO _____ IFIRI MEMBERSHIP NUMBER____________________

PRIMARY PHONE: FAX: __________________________________

HOME PHONE: MOBILE: ________________________________

EMAIL ADDRESS:

SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO: [ ] HOME [ ] OFFICE

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SOCIAL SECURITY #, SIN or LIKEWISE) _________________________________

Home Address:
(Street)

(City) (State/Province/Territory) (zip/postal code) (Country)

12
 International Fire Investigation Research Institute
Forensic Fire Investigator
223 East Greenbriar Lane
Dallas, Texas 75203-1013
214-753-8600

APPLICATION FOR FORENSIC FIRE INVESTIGATOR CERTIFICATION

Name: Date of Birth:

IFIRI Membership Number: CFI Number_______________

PFI Number _________________ CFEI Number __________________

Identification Number (SS#, SIN or likewise):

Home Address:
(Street)

(City) (State/Province/Territory) (zip/postal code) (Country)

Job Title:

Job Description:

Place of employment
Name:

(Street) (City) (State/Province/Territory) (zip/postal code)

Primary Phone: Fax:

Home Phone: Mobile:

E-Mail: Address

Send Correspondence to: [ ] Home [ ] Office

Note: The Forensic Fire Investigator Certification is knowledge based and requires passing a comprehensive test. IFIRI requires
that all applicants be in possession of one of the following certifications before applying for Forensic Fire Investigator: CFI, PFI,
CFEI. The applicant also must attest that he/she has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

13
 Commercial, Residential, Structural,
Vehicle, Heavy Equipment,
Marine, Appliances and Wild Land

1565 W. Main #208-143, Lewisville, Texas 75067

phone: 214-432-5824 toll free: 855-4F3FIRE

fax: 214-234-9497

e-mail: info@F3Fire.com website: www.F3Fire.com

Search jobs at:

www.uis-usa.com/employment.htm

1-888-584-7872 www.uis-usa.com

Unified Investigations and Sciences is now hiring

Fire Investigators in the following locations:
Atlanta, GA - Anchorage, AK - Albuquerque, NM - Bakersfield, CA - Chattanooga, TN
Denver, CO - Detroit, MI - El Paso, TX - Indianapolis, IN - Jackson, MS - Kansas City, MO - Las Cruces, NM
Little Rock, AR - Los Angeles, CA Maine Memphis, TN - Minneapolis, MN Montana - New York City, NY
Northern CA - Portland, OR - San Diego, CA - South Florida - Southwest OR - Virginia Beach, VA

We provide professional services to the insurance industry and manufacturers and their legal teams
by seeking and reporting factual information. The ideal candidate knows that Results Matter and is:

An accomplished fire investigator Court qualified as an expert

Articulate and able to present factual data
in a clear and concise manner
IAAI-CFI or able/willing to become nationally certified
Experienced and proficient in all aspects
of NFPA 921 and scientific methodology
Has the ability to be a self supervisor
Has, or is able to obtain, private investigation licenses
in the state(s) in which you will work
Willing to dig deep, never quit and get a little dirty
to uncover the truth
Technologically proficient, interested in learning, honest
and always seeking the truth
Self-motivated, seeking competitive pay and performance bonuses

Like us at /unifiedinvestigations Follow us at /Companies > Unified Investigations & Sciences

14
 NEW! foXraylle Portable, Digital X-ray System

Lorne L. Lomprey,
IAAI-CFI, NAFI-CFEI
OWNER-MANAGER

Timothy G. Lomprey,
IAAI-CFI; NAFI-CFEI; NAFI-CVFI
Certified Fire Investigator
Pro-Board Certified Haz-Mat Technician

888-521-8221 Delta-Xray
sales@delta-xray.com www.vidisco.com

Call For White Papers

The International Fire Investigation Research
Institute is inviting all eligible speakers to
submit white papers for upcoming seminars.

All speakers are already booked for the Novem-

ber seminar in Dallas, Texas. The next seminar is
scheduled for March 2012. Additional information
will be announced in the Fall issue of FIRE IN-
SIGHT.

You can email your white papers to Terri Sullivan

at: tsullivan@ifiri.com 3832 Calle De Benito
Las Vegas, NV 89121-6015
If you would prefer to mail them they should be
sent to: Phone: (702) 382-0500
www.LompreyInvestigations.com
IFIRI - Speakers Bureau
223 E. Greenbriar Lane
Dallas, Texas 75203-1013 NEVADA # 355 ARIZONA # 9206003
CALIFORNIA # PI-15790 UTAH # P1000657
15
 The Scientific Method as defined, and explained, in NFPA 921 (2011) leads the investigator through several stages of what is termed as
the Basic Methodology.

Fire Investigator (2012) asks the question A key question to determine whether a hypothesis is valid is this What other hypothesis
could be supported by the same set of facts? (Pg. 19)

One thing is certain, when it comes to questioning the final hypothesis selected by the investigator, by an opposing expert, or in court; if
you havent tested the hypothesis, someone else will have!

NFPA 921 (2011) states, The systematic approach recommended is that of the scientific method, which is used in the physical sciences.
(Ch. 4.2, Pg. 17)

One of the best ways to put your professionalism and credibility in jeopardy is to NOT follow the recommended methodology and just
hope for the best.

As an example; a fire occurred, involving a small family dwelling. One fire involved an open verandah area of the house; in the rear
yard, a motor vehicle had been severely damaged by fire. The local fire service attended and extinguished the fires. Part of the attending fire
service crew, the officer, stated he was an authorised professional fire investigator, authorised by his service.

The scene was investigated, but no samples were taken, for analysis of any fire debris or other items of evidence. During the inspection
of the scene the investigator found a 5 litre (one gallon) metal fuel container (not fitted with a lid), located between the front seats of the
burnt-out vehicle.

The investigators final determination on the origin and cause of the fire included the fact that he found no evidence of burn patterns on
the verandah of the house to indicate the presence, and use, of a liquid accelerant. His final determination being that he believed the fires were
arson related, both were connected, and that the petrol (gasoline) from the container in the vehicle was used to start both fires.

Reading the details of his inspection of the scene and the final determination led to one question (for a start) amongst a barrage of other
questions to come How do you know the container between the seats of the vehicle actually contained petrol, if no samples were taken?

Step three of the Scientific Method Collect Data. The investigator appeared to have collected a lot of data regarding the fires, to al-
low him to form a hypothesis, but upon reaching the Test the Hypothesis stage the investigator placed his credibility at great risk by using
supposition and expectation bias to form a final hypothesis, based on his findings that there were two separate fires. No actual cause was
determined for either fire. His finding that the metal fuel container found within the vehicle had contained petrol (gasoline) is a guess at best;
and, an invitation to attack his credibility, at least.

In another incident a fire had damaged a small family dwelling, in a remote location subject to extremes of hot and dry weather condi-
tions. Owing to the conditions the house was constructed with a vent between the top wall plate and the roof structure. This consisted of a
timber frame on top of the exterior wall, with an opening of approximately 150mm (6 inches), with a covering of bird wire, to deter entry of
vermin. This allowed air circulation and ventilation of the roof space to maintain a more comfortable temperature inside the house, for the
residents. The timber roof structure was fixed above this frame, with the eaves protruding out an unusual length, to provide extra shade for the
house. (please see under roof vent photo)

16
16
 Upon arrival of the first firefighters it was noted that a fire
was burning, in stacked timber, outside the dwelling, against
the wall, the flames travelling up, against the wall, and onto
the corrugated iron roof covering. Shortly after arrival the
firefighters noticed a fire inside the dwelling.

Based on the above observations of the first arriving

firefighters, the fire service investigator made a determination
of arson, owing to the fact that there were believed to be two
separate, and unconnected, fires. As a result of this finding the
investigator pointed a finger at a suspect, who was subse-
quently arrested and charged with the arson, by attending
police.

During the investigation the investigator found no

evidence of any forced entry to the building, apart from that
by the fire service. There was also no evidence (fingerprints,
DNA etc. of the suspect) of anyone actually being inside the
house, to have set the fire inside the dwelling.

The investigator collected evidence, by way of obser- View of vent on top of wall and under roof.
vations, notes, diagrams and photographs to reach the final
hypothesis; two separate fires, one outside involving stacked
timber, the other inside the house, deliberately lit on the top of a set of double bunk beds, in a bedroom. The finding also stated there was no
evidence that the outside fire had entered to start the fire inside, and that there was no evidence that there had been any fire in any other rooms
of the house.

One only had to look at the photographs supplied for this

matter to see that the timber roof structure had been severely
fire damaged, with destruction and collapse of structural
members. (please see roof structure photo) There was also
evidence, in the photographs, to show that all of the fibrous
plaster ceilings throughout the house had collapsed into the
rooms they covered. Photos showed burnt structural roofing
timber on top of furniture and across the floor, throughout the
house. One photo showed severely burnt and charred pieces of
large cross-sectional, heavy timber, on top of a set of double
bunks (metal framed bunks with only wire from mattresses
remaining) that were severely fire damaged.

With no evidence of anyone in the house to light the

second fire; the presence of an opening into the roof void in
the path the flames were taking; flames observed spreading up
the exterior wall and onto the roof; severe fire damage involv-
ing the roof structure; and, evidence of collapse of that burnt
roof timber inside rooms in the house; how can one defend a
finding of arson because of two separate, and unrelated, fires?
View of fire damaged and collapsed roof structure.
Testing your hypothesis, according to NFPA 921-2011
(Ch. 4) means using Deductive Reasoning to test if your evi-
dence will withstand the test of careful and serious challenge. It also goes on to say, Testing of the hypothesis is done by the principle of
deductive reasoning in which the investigator compares his or her hypothesis to all the known facts as well as the body of scientific knowl-
edge associated with the phenomenon relevant to the specific incident. (Pg.18)

In another incident, fire damaged a two seat, timber-framed couch, with polyurethane cushions, covered in an unidentified fabric. The
couch wasnt destroyed but only damaged by fire, with the frame remaining intact and some of the cushion material. (please see room photo)

The fire service investigator attended, conducted a scene inspection, and investigation, of the damage, made observations, took notes and
photographs of the scene. As a result of his findings, and deliberations, the investigator determined not only that the fire had been deliberately
ignited, but that a particular person was a suspect and responsible for the fire (as a result of discussions with the apartment owner). This sus-
pect was subsequently arrested and charged, by the police, with arson.

One of the things that an investigator is cautioned against, is having a closed mind and/or preconceived idea, on the cause of the fire;
and, that they should approach any scene with an open mind. Another caution, is not to be belligerent, or conceited in the witness box. De-
Haan and Icove (2011, in Kirks Fire Investigation) indicate A professional comes thoroughly prepared, testifies to the limits of the informa-
tion, explains and defends conclusions, and provides a source of reliable information to the trier of facts. It is only in this way that the fire
investigator sees that justice is served in the case at hand. (Pg.727)

17
 Once the matter came to court, the investigator, having
previously submitted the report and photographs, entered the
witness box to give evidence. The evidence-in-chief was pre-
sented and once under cross-examination the investigator was
asked Mr. Investigator, why should we take your word for it
that this is what happened? His reply Well, its this way, Im
the best youve got and you have to listen to what Ive said,
because Im the expert in these matters in this area.

Earlier evidence presented by the investigator in estab-

lishing his credentials, and qualifications, to the court, stated
that he had attended a two-week course in fire investigation
some eight years prior (this course was subsequently discov-
ered to only be recognised by his own fire service, and no
other authority in the country). He belonged to no professional
fire investigation organization; did not read fire investigation
manuals, texts or literature; had not conducted any, scientific
or otherwise, fire testing for any of his fires; had not attended
any refresher fire investigation course in that eight years; and, View of room where fire occurred, showing ventilation points.
could not say how many fires he had attended or investigated
in that time. NFPA 1033 indicates 1.3.7 The investigator
shall remain current with investigation methodology, fire protection technology, and code requirements by attending workshops and seminars
and/or through professional publications and journals. (Pg.6) 4.1.4 The fire investigator shall maintain necessary liaison with other inter-
ested professionals and entities. (Pg. 7)

The investigator, in this case, further qualified his finding of arson by stating that the fire could not have started by a dropped cigarette,
onto the cushions of the couch as the smoke detector would have activated a lot sooner than it did.

Looking at the photographs supplied by the investigator it was noticed that the couch was located to the right of a three metre (10 feet)
wide alloy and glass sliding door (open at the time), in front of a glass louvered window (open at the time), a wall-mounted air conditioner
was fitted above the couch, and, the room was fitted with ceiling-mounted fans.

When the investigators report was perused, there was no mention of the sliding glass door being open (ventilation point), no mention of
the glass louver window (ventilation), no mention of the ceiling fan (ventilation? if operating), and most of all, no mention of the type of
smoke detector, or its location in relation to the couch.

The first question (again, amongst a barrage of other questions that arose) How can one say [If the fire had been started by a dropped
cigarette] the smoke detector would have activated earlier when no notice (no documentation) has been taken of the type or location of the
smoke detector?

The investigators final determination was based on how long the fire had been burning (from activation of the smoke detector) and the
location of the suspect at that time. There was no consideration of the ventilation effects of the open door, window or if the air-conditioner
and fans were actually operating to create a ventilation effect with the smoke travel inside the room. All of these factors may have had an ef-
fect on the smoke travel relative to the activation of the smoke detector.

In relation to the ignitability of the polyurethane foam cushions on the couch, the investigator was asked if he had tested the foam to see
if it was flammable. He replied that he had not done any site testing at the scene, or subsequently. Relative to the flammability and ignit-
ability, he was asked if he knew whether the foam was fire retarded. His reply I didnt test it, but Im sure that if it was purchased from a
reputable store (named a well-known retailer) it would be fire retarded. (Subsequent research found that there is no legislation in Australia
that requires living room furniture to be fire retarded.)

As a consequence of the investigators lack of credible evidence relative to his hypothesis the case against the accused was found to be,
not proven.

In an interesting aside to these incidents (all true and involving the author, and, occurring in the same state and with the same fire
service) the author delivered a lecture on fire investigation to a gathering of members of the legal profession from all over Australia. At the
conclusion of the lecture, two members of the legal profession, from that state, approached the author with the statement Do you think we
have a problem in our state in regard to fire investigation? As Homer Simpson would say, DUH!

The lesson, hopefully, learned from these examples is Follow the recommended methodology of the Scientific Method, ensure you follow
and comply with the NFPA 1033 standard Job Performance Requirements (JPRs), and, above all TEST YOUR FINAL HYPOTHESIS because
IF YOU DONT, SOMEONE ELSE SURELY WILL!!

REFERENCE LIST
DeHaan, J.D., Icove, D. (2011) Kirks Fire Investigation. Brady Books, Pearson Education. USA
NFPA, IAFC, IAAI (2012). Fire Investigator, Principles and Practice to NFPA 921 & 1033.Jones & Bartlett Learning, USA.
National Fire Protection Association (2011) NFPA 921 Guide for Fire & Explosion Investigation. National fire Protection Association, USA.
National Fire Protection Association (2009) NFPA 1033 Standard for professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator National Fire Protection Association, USA.

18
 IS YOUR HYPOTHESIS DEFENDABLE?Ross Brogan, AFSM, MA, CFI/IAAI

Ross is a retired firefighter who served for 38 years in the New South Wales (NSW)
Fire Brigades, retiring as at Inspector rank. He was attached to the Fire Investigation
Unit, as an investigator, for sixteen years. In 1987 he completed the NSW Police De-
tective Training class. In 2001 he was attached to a NSW Police Strike Force, investi-
gating bush fires throughout NSW.

Since 2002 he has been an adjunct lecturer with Charles Sturt University, teaching
classes in fire investigation to students from all over the world. Twice a year he con-
ducts a face-to-face class on basic fire investigation for students from fire service,
police and private industry. Ross runs his own small consulting business.

Ross is a member of the International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI) and

on the IAAI Fire Investigator Standards committee and member of the Editorial Board
of the Fire & Arson Investigator magazine. He is also a life member, and committee
member, of the NSW Association of Fire Investigators and member of the Victoria,
Queensland, Australia. UK & Eire chapters.

Professional Fire and Explosion

Origin & Cause Investigations

F irensics, Inc., is a progressive company

constantly on the lookout for new ideas
and advancements in science and
techniques, firmly dedicated to the principle that objective,
effective investigations begin with an open and well-trained mind,
and a well-used shovel. Our team members analyze losses
through the use of scientific methods and principles recognized
industry-wide, insuring the most complete
and accurate documentation of subrogation
issues available today.

Be sure to read our Objectivity series of

articles beginning in this issue.

eroberts@firensics.com www.firensics.com

phone: 214-290-8030 fax: 866-843-9475

toll free: 855-347-3674 Member of IFIRI

Located in Midlothian, Texas

Texas License #A17267 Edward G. Roberts, CFI
President

Great Lakes Analytical

17526 E 10 Mile Road
Eastpointe, MI 48021
586-779-5648

19
 Part Ii
SPALLING

FLAMMABLE LIQUID?
or NOT

Many old-time fire investigators will tell you that if spalling occurs in fire, an accelerant MUST have been used. Is
there any scientific evidence to support such a position? In order to answer that question, one must know the definition
of spalling and the causes of spallation. Misconceptions about spalling often arise because of the failure to understand
the most common material used in construction in the United States today CONCRETE.

Properties of Concrete and Portland Cement

Concrete is a mixture of cement, water, and aggregates. First, together and ground up again. The gypsum controls the rate of hydra-
concrete and cement are words that are not interchangeable. Concrete tion which in turn controls the hardening process when the cement
is to cement as a cake is to flour. Cement paste, a mixture of cement is mixed with water. The final product of these grinding, firing, and
and water, binds together to form a rock-like mass. mixing processes is called portland cement.

Portland cement paste makes up only about 22 to 38% of the

Portland cement is a manufactured cement and is not a brand.
It is spelled with a small p because it has nothing to do with either
Oregon or Maine but takes its name from its resemblance to stone
quarried on the Isle of Portland in Dorset, England
Portland cement is made by cindering finely crushed limestone,
marl, shell, or other rock products in huge kilns. The resulting ce-
ment clinkers plus a small amount of gypsum (about 3%) are mixed
total volume of concrete. The remaining 78 to 62% of concrete can be
made of fine aggregates such as sand and course aggregates such as
gravel stone.
Fine aggregate, such as sand, ranges in size from .25 in (6.35
mm) down to particles which will pass through a sieve having 100
openings per linear inch (25.4 mm) or 10,000 openings per square
inch (645.2 mm2). Course aggregate is well grated or crushed rock and

22
Each of the principal ingredients of concretecement,
aggregate and wateris indispensable in making concrete; but
each can also negatively affect properties of concrete.
can range from one-fourth inch (6.35 mm). Course aggregate should
be hard and not flaky and should not contain lumps of clay or organic
matter. Also, the mixing water for concrete should be clean and free of
acids, alkalies, and other materials detrimental to good cement. Poorly
made concrete may crack, craze, scale, and spall under effects of loads
or temperature. It can even disintegrate completely.
By adding small quantities of an air-entraining agent at the time
of manufacture, concrete can be made to have millions of tiny air bub-
bles. This results in improved performance of concrete, particularly
against the freezing action in the northern climates.
Aggregates used in concrete can vary widely in different parts of
the country. The type of aggregate used is a major factor in determin-
ing thermal and physical characteristics of concrete, such as thermal
conductivity, changes in strength and color, and possible spalling.
Concrete properties are affected by temperatures and aggregate
type. It is also interesting to note that dolomitic gravel leads to very
good fire resistance in concrete. The reason for this is that the calcina-
tion (occurring at 1100 to 1400 F 593.33 to 760 C) of the carbon
aggregate is endothermic, and, as a result, heat is absorbed and a fur-
ther temperature rise is often delayed.
Spalling is the Fragmentation or Chipping Away of Concrete
In the first part of this article, I discussed the structure and char-
acteristics of concrete including cement, aggregate variations, water-
cement ratio, pre-stressed versus reinforced concrete and concrete
finishing.
It was stated that aggregates play a major role in the behavior of
concrete under thermal stresses. In a fire, any material present is sub-
jected to a thermal gradient. That is, the outer surface heats first and
continues to increase in temperature as the interior begins to heat. The
external layers tend to remain hotter than inner layers, thus maintain-
ing the thermal distribution during the combustion process.
The effect of this temperature gradient on concrete is that the
outer hot layers tend to separate and spall from the cooler inner layers.
The crumbling or chipping away of the concrete is affected to a degree
by the heat conductivity and resulting expansion of the aggregates as
they affect the temperature gradient of the concrete. It is easy to see
that variations in the thermal conductivity of aggregates will produce
23
Some of the most dramatic examples of spalling are thought to
be caused by entrapped moisture at very high temperatures.
Some investigators believe this type of spalling can occur
deep in concrete and produce larger, thicker chips, but even
that generalization on this subject is very difficult at best.
Although the type of aggregate used in concrete plays a major
role when concrete is exposed to high temperatures, it is not the only
factor in determining the behavior of concrete under thermal stresses.
For example, the water-cement ratio bears a fixed relationship to the
strength of concrete.
In addition, prestressed concrete is of a higher strength than that
normally used in reinforced concrete construction; however, there is
a greater tendency for prestressed concrete to spall in fire. The mixed
proportions of ingredients in concrete can also vary but are usually
regulated by A.S.T.M. standard test methods.
Concrete can be finished in a variety of ways that range from
a rough porous surface to an almost completely waterproof, glazed
surface. Each of the principal ingredients of concrete-cement, aggre-
gate and water is indispensable in making concrete; but each can also
negatively affect properties of concrete.
radical differences in temperature and
stresses which in turn could cause
spalling.
Although aggregate composition
is the major contributor to stresses set
up by steep thermal gradients, some
of the most dramatic examples of
spalling are thought to be caused by
entrapped moisture at very high tem-
peratures. Trapped water within con
The type of aggregate used in
concrete plays a major role when
concrete is exposed to high
temperatures, but it is not the only
factor in determining the behavior
of concrete under thermal
stresses.
crete can easily reach a boiling point during a fire and result in steam
expansion to 1700 times its original volume. There is a direct link
between moisture and concrete and spalling.

What I have described are the two major causes of spalling. We

now come to the question critical to the fire investigator can ignit-
able liquids cause spalling? Flammable and combustible liquids burn
at almost the same temperature as wood but burns much more vigor-
ously and rapidly than wood. The rate at which the heat is given off
depends on how quickly the substances approach the vapor state and
also on temperature balance. This in turn affects how fast oxygen
mixes with flammable vapor.

Solid lumber is slow to pyrolyze compared to wood shavings

which burn at a very rapid rate because they have a much larger sur-
face area in relation to their mass. Not all substances give off the same
amount of heat during this oxidation process. For example, oak wood
gives off 7,180 BTUs per pound while gasoline gives off 20,100
BTUs per pound.

As I discussed in a previous article, however, it must be remem-
bered that solids and liquids do not burn in those states but must be
converted to a vapor or gas before they will ignite or burn. Thus, a
cooling layer of liquid (which has given up heat to the vapor above)
remains between the burning gas and the concrete until the moment at
which all the ignitable liquid has been consumed.
It follows then that the temperature of the concrete should not
increase significantly until the flammable liquid has vaporized and has
burned away. Accordingly, most spalling occurs from radiated heat
after the fire is well developed. Most of the present research conducted
Trapped water within concrete can easily reach boiling point
during a fire and result in steam expansion to 1700 times its
original volume.
on spalling does not indicate the presence of spalling when hydro-
carbon fuels are burned on concrete slabs, but does indicate spalling
with solid fuels, such as wooden crates, etc., on concrete. Unfortu-
nately, because of the many variables contributing to spalling, such
small scale fire-tests do not necessarily indicate performance in well
involved structural fires.

United Services Automobile Association v Larry Wade and Tracie Wade Appeal
Spalling by itself does not indicate the use of a liquid hydrocar-
bon fuel and can be very misleading, and is not an indicator of arson.
The investigator should be very cautious when considering spalling as
an indicator that an accelerant was used.
In the case The State of Alabama-Judicial Department, The Su-
preme Court of Alabama, October Term, 1988-89, United Services
Automobile Association v. Larry Wade and Tracie Wade, Appeal from
Walker Circuit Court (CV-85-87), an investigator based his opinion
that there was arson largely on a spalling trail that he found leading
from the basement door toward the center of the room. In his investi-
gation he failed to clear the entire basement floor of debris.
Another investigator called in by the defendant cleared the entire
floor and discovered that spalling was prevalent over the entire floor,
and there was no discernible trail.
I will not go into the entire case but highly recommend that all
fire investigators who want to enhance their professional ability, re

This investigator is using calcium carbonate to draw ignitible

If spalling has a pattern, then fire suppresssion personnel
should be questioned to determine if water was sprayed
where the pattern ocurred.
24
liquids from the concrete. Diatomaceous earth, a product used
in swimming pool filters, is also an excellent substance that
can be used to extract ignitible liquids from concrete. Flour
should be avoided since it can ferment and create alcohol.
view the case thoroughly. In any event, United Services Automobile
Associations (USAA) investigator, by removing debris only from one
area and hinging his entire determination on the presence of spalling
alone, was exposed to the ultimate ridicule of the Court.
Even though considerably more research needs to be conducted,
there is no scientific evidence at this point to support the argument that
spalling is caused by liquid hydrocarbon fuel. Carter Roberts through
IFIRI is conducting further research on concrete spalling. The results
will be published in a future issue of Fire Insight.

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. T.D. Lin, Principal Research Engineer, Construction Technology Laboratories,
Inc., Skokie, Illinois, for reviewing this article for technical accuracy. I would also like to thank Engineer Frank Nickolaus
with Gifford-Hill and Company, Inc, in Dallas, Texas, for his suggestions and resource input.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT FIRE INVESTIGATION PART II

Carter D. Roberts is the founder, president and CEO of the International Fire Investigation
Research Institute, Inc., an international forensic training, investigation and research company.
He holds a Bachelor of Science in Management and an MBA from Samford University. Carter
has written and published numerous articles concerning fire investigation and has over thirty-
seven years of investigation experience.

Carter is an IAAI-Certified Fire Investigator and is a Certified Fire & Explosion Investigator, a
Certified Vehicle Fire Investigator and a Certified Fire Investigator Instructor by the National
Association of Fire Investigators.

Carter can be reached at the International Fire Investigation Research Institute in Dallas, Texas.
His email is: croberts@ifiri.com

To IAAI Directors and NAFI Executives

As time goes by, most of you will realize that the International Fire Investigation
Research Institute (IFIRI) will not harm either the IAAI or the NAFI. I am a
member of both associations and hold certifications with both. I plan to keep
my certifications current and to remain an active member of each.

Further learning and training does no harm and is beneficial to all fire and
forensic experts. Fear of competition is the fear of ones own inadequacy. There
is much less to fear from outside competition than from inside inefficiency, dis-
courtesy and bad service. We all should help each organization to become bet-
ter.

The IFIRI will provide insurance companies with certifications which will help
them vet their forensic experts. One of our certifications will require one to al-
ready be a Certified Fire Investigator (CFI) or a Certified Fire & Explosion Investi-
gator (CFEI) before applying for certification as a Forensic Fire Investigator. IFIRI
is your friend, not your enemy and we look forward to working with both orga-
nizations.

25
 Your colleagues need you! The IFIRI needs you! Our forum needs you!

www.IFIRI.com/forum
Its easy. Its free. And its open to everyone!

We at the International Fire Investigation Research Institute are committed to fostering and encouraging an atmosphere of free and open
exchange of information among fire professionals. Among professionals who have respect for other professionals and for themselves.
This principle is the heart of our forum.

The IFIRI Forum is a place where those associated with fire investigations can go for information and interaction without the fear of being
personally attacked for their opinions, positions, or questions.

In order to encourage the free exchange of information we have come up with a very few rules to foster an open environment, such as all
members must be diligent in making sure the content of the forum remains not only civil, but professionally valuable. You can check out
the rules on the forum under Rules for Forum Use.

To sign up, go to the address

above and click "Register" on the
right hand side of the screen.
You will then be presented with
the Forum Rules and Policies. If
you agree, proceed to the
registration page.

Members are required to use

real names, not nicknames like
"FireGod" or other pseudonyms.
If Vulcan ever shows up on the
forum we will recognize him as a
fire god, but, as for the rest of us,
we are professional peers who
have no need to hide behind
anonymity.

You are not required to include your date of birth or other personal
information, but you will be able to post a photograph of yourself,
information about your department or business, and your hobbies.
Its a great way to put a name to a face and have a built-in cadre of
friends at the next professional seminar you attend!

Once you are registered, you will find the forums on the main screen.
Read and post to any that you wish.

Each forum allows photograph AND video postings, as well as a

number of editing and formatting options.

There is a section in the forums for discussing each issue of Fire

Insight magazine, the official journal of the IFIRI. Have a question
about a featured article? Discuss it on the forum with your peers and
the author of the article.

The IFIRI Forum is designed to be a place for the meaningful exchange

of information and education among fire investigators and other
professional forensic experts and scientists. Meet us there!

26
 PART I1
By Terry-Dawn Hewitt and Wayne McKenna2

1. INTRODUCTION

Every once in a great while a rare confluence of forces creates an
event of enormous magnitude.3 When the forces are meteorological,
weather forecasters use the phrase perfect storm to describe the
outcome. The perfect storm is an apt analogy for what we predict
fire investigators will face in civil and criminal litigation from three
forces that have been evolving over time and are now converging.
These are:
1) the ongoing movement by courts across the nation to scruti-
nize more closely the reliability of expert testimony,
2) a growing alarm about wrongful convictions stemming from
faulty forensic evidence,
3) the continuing development of industry standards that are
raising the bar for fire investigators.
In the United States the adversary system4 dictates the methods used
to seek the truth and justice when conflicting positions result in liti-
gation. Therefore, it is through pre-trial and trial procedures that fire
investigators are most likely to meet the most severe challenges to
their methods and conclusions. It is within the litigation context that
we predict the coming of a perfect storm for fire investigators. Fire
investigation experts are already feeling the effects of the precur-
sor to this storm with an escalation of the number of challenges by
attorneys to the reliability and admissibility of their expert testimony
in court.5 However, this is just the beginning. The perfect storm of
litigation for fire investigators will encompass criminal as well as
civil cases and will last for years. While we are confident that the
eventual outcome will be the betterment of both the theory and prac-
tice of fire investigations, the transition will not be an easy one. Part
I of this article examines the first two of the three forces listed above.
Part II reviews the third force, and then sets forth how these forces
are converging in court and the reasoning behind our prediction of
the perfect storm.

2. THE THREE FORCES

2.1 Reliability Challenges To Expert Testimony

With its 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.,6 the United States Supreme Court struck a serious blow in the
war against the use of junk science in the courtroom by implement-
ing a new scheme making the reliability of scientific expert evidence
a prerequisite of admissibility. There has been much written about
Daubert and its impact on expert evidence, so for the purposes of
this article, we will provide a bare-bones review in order to place the
information that follows into context.7
27
In federal court the admissibility of expert evidence is governed by
Rule 7028 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the heart of which, prior
to Daubert, required that to render an expert opinion at trial, one had
to be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, train-
ing, or education9 with respect to the subject of the testimony. The
key issue was therefore the experts qualifications, rather than the
substance of his or her evidence, unless the experts testimony was
based on novel scientific theories or techniques, in which case it was
necessary to show that the foundations of the opinion were generally
accepted in the relevant field.10 This general acceptance test came
from a 1923 federal appellate court decision in Frye v. United States,
known as the Frye general acceptance test. Therefore, before
Daubert, the main prerequisite to admissibility was an experts quali-
fications. Reliability was only an issue if the expert based his or her
evidence on novel scientific theories or techniques.
In overruling Frye, the Daubert decision propounded several guiding
principles, one of which was to impose a gate-keeping obligation on
trial judges to determine the admissibility of expert evidence based
on its relevance and reliability. Daubert requires of experts that (1)
[their] testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) [their]
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3)
[they have] applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
the case.11 With respect to the trial judges inquiry into the reliability
of the evidence, the Court offered a non-definitive list of the types of
factors a trial judge may decide to consider in making the determi-
nation of the reliability of the scientific testimony.12 These factors
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Testing: Whether or not a theory or technique has been or concluded that their qualifications were insufficient to support some
can be tested, and if the hypothesis underlying the theory or aspects of the opinions they rendered, that their evidence was specu-
technique can be falsified.
(ii) Peer Review or Publication: Whether the theory or
technique has been subjected to peer review or dants were therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.22 The
publication.
(iii) Error Rate: Whether the theory or technique has a known the importance of the Daubert decision, and the onerous obligation
or potential rate of error.
(iv) Standards: The existence and maintenance of standards of reliability such evidence must meet.24 [Emphasis added.]
controlling the techniques operation.
(v) General Acceptance: Whether or not there has been
general acceptance of the theory or technique in the
relevant scientific community (this test was retained from gant who fails to ensure the reliability of expert witness testimony in
the Frye decision.)13
The Court also made it clear that this decision set forth the gate-
keeping function for all scientific evidence, not just novel or
unconventional scientific theories.14 It is within the discretion of the
trial court whether to hold what has become known as a Daubert
hearing to evaluate the reliability of the whole or a part of an experts
testimony, and if so, whether to consider the factors enumerated in
Daubert or other factors in order to decide the reliability issue. Rule
702 was eventually amended to reflect the Daubert decision.15
Following Daubert, a logical question soon arose about the limits
of the trial judges discretion when exercising this gate-keeping
function and the role of appellate courts in reviewing a trial courts
decision. This question was answered by the Supreme Courts 1997
decision in General Electric Co. v. Joiner,16 where it decided that
appellate review of a decision to admit or exclude expert evidence
would not be particularly stringent. To overturn a trial courts deci-
sion on a Daubert motion, the appeals court would have to find that
the trial judge abused his or her discretion. The result of Joiner is
that the trial judge is free to exercise discretion to admit or exclude
testimony, limited only by palpable error. Subsequently, in 1999
in Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael,17 the Supreme Court
extended the reach of Daubert by determining that Rule 702 and
the Daubert reliability tests apply to technical as well as scientific
knowledge.
The following year the Court rendered a decision that underscored
the potentially severe implications of Daubert where the expert evi-
dence is crucial to the outcome of a case and an appeal court decides
it is not reliable. The case was Weisgram v. Marley Co.,18 which
28
the plaintiffs commenced after Mrs. Weisgram died from carbon
monoxide poisoning caused by a fire in her home. The son of the
deceased, her estate, and her homeowner insurers, brought a product
liability action against Marley Co. and others alleging that the fire
was caused by a defect in a baseboard heater manufactured fifteen
years earlier by the defendants. The Marley Co. defendants objected
to the admissibility of the evidence of the plaintiffs three expert wit-
nesses, but the trial judge allowed this evidence at trial and the jury
rendered a verdict in the plaintiffs favor. The defendants responded
with a motion for judgment, on the basis that the trial court should
not have permitted the plaintiffs experts to testify, and without their
evidence, there was no proof that the heater was defective when it
left the manufacturer.19
The trial judge denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court,
directing the trial judge to enter judgment in favor of the Marley
Co.20 defendants. The heart of the court of appeals decision was a
meticulous review of the evidence of Weisgrams experts. The court
lative, lacked sufficient factual foundation, was not reliable, and
should have been excluded at trial.21 Without this expert evidence,
the plaintiffs had no proof of the defect in the heater, and the defen-
United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate
court.23 Central to the Supreme Courts ruling was a reminder about
it imposed, when the Court said, Since Daubert, moreover, parties
relying on expert evidence have had notice of the exacting standards
Weisgram is enlightening for two reasons. First, it underscores that
Daubert imposes an exacting standard for the reliability of expert
evidence. Second, it demonstrates the severe consequences to a liti-
a case that turns on such testimony. The Eighth Circuits decision is
particularly instructive for the fire investigation community because
it demonstrates how expert testimony based largely on interpreta-
tion of physical evidence from a fire scene such as fire patterns can
be dismantled by restrictively construing the qualifications of the
experts combined with a thorough analysis of the factual foundations
and scientific underpinnings of their inferences and opinions, guided
by Dauberts reliability factors.
A major upshot of the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho-Weisgram quartet has
been to empower trial and appellate courts to wrestle with reliabil-
ity issues concerning expert evidence that previously were largely
ignored, excluding expert testimony where warranted. Daubert chal-
lenges have become commonplace and are launched with surprising
success against even the most well-known experts. Untold experts
have had their evidence limited or excluded to such an extent that
commercial tracking services have sprung up to report the perfor-
mance of individual experts under Daubert scrutiny.25
Daubert is a federal decision, applicable only in cases being heard
in federal courts, but its influence has spread. Most states, either
through judge-made law or their legislatures, have adopted the same
or similar admissibility standards requiring not only that an expert be
qualified as such, but that the experts opinion be reliable as mea-
sured by factors such as those listed above.26 A few states including
California and New York have declined to impose a Daubert-like
reliability test to replace the pre-existing admissibility rule fashioned
after Frye v. United States,27 which requires the proponent of novel
scientific evidence to prove that the theories and methods used by the
expert have reached the level of general acceptance by the relevant
scientific community. This does not mean that Daubert has not had
its influence in these jurisdictions. Those that apply Frye have been
more rigorous in testing for reliability since Daubert.28 Therefore, as
the American Bar Association Innocence Committee concluded in a
2006 study, under both an increasingly stringent Daubert standard
and a reinvigorated Frye test, scientific proof is being scrutinized
more closely than ever before.29
Awareness that Dauberts reliability standards apply to fire inves-
tigators began to surface with Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance
Corp. v. Benfield.30 This case began in 1995, when the testimony of a
well-qualified, highly experienced fire investigator who had testified
on numerous occasions as an expert in fire cause determination was
successfully challenged using the Daubert reliability factors and his
entire expert testimony was excluded from trial. Needless to say, as
with most successful Daubert challenges, the party on whose behalf
he was testifying lost the case.
2.2 Increasing Alarm About Wrongful Convictions And
The National Academy Of Sciences Report On Forensic Sciences
At least as far back as the early 1990s,33 there has been a noticeable
growth in the movement to rectify wrongful convictions. Groups
such as the Innocence Project, a national non-profit organization
founded by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld affiliated with Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York,34
have done much to exonerate wrongfully convicted prisoners and
increase the understanding of the legal community and the public
at large about the extent of miscarriages of justice in America. The
influence of the Innocence Project has spread over time, in part
through the Innocence Network, which is an affiliation of organiza-
tions dedicated to providing pro bono legal and investigative services
to individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which they
have been convicted and working to redress the causes of wrongful
convictions.35 With members in 45 states,36 the Innocence Network
has a broad base of support and influence across the United States.
One of the ways that the Innocence Project has drawn attention to the
weaknesses of the criminal justice system is by exploring the causes
of wrongful convictions, one of which it categorizes as unvalidated
or improper forensic science.37 Awareness of problems with forensic
science started with a widespread concern about abuses in crime
labs that DNA exonerations brought to light, exposing problems in
labs throughout America. Issues ranging from negligence to inten-
tional misconduct were investigated in a number of states including
Virginia, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio, California, and in the
FBI lab.38 The federal government reacted. Since 2002 funding had
been provided to states and local governments through the Coverdell
Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program for the purposes of
improving the quality and timeliness of forensic science and medi-
cal examiner services.39 In 2004 Congress amended the eligibility
requirements for states and local governments applying for funds,
compelling them to certify as follows:
[W]ith respect to any forensic laboratory system, medical
examiners office, coroners office, law enforcement
storage facility, or medical facility that will receive any
portion of the grant that a government entity exists and
an appropriate process is in place to conduct independent
external investigations into allegations of serious negligence or
misconduct by employees or contractors substantially affecting
the integrity of forensic results.40
Nearly every state has since certified that they have in place an
entity and procedures to conduct investigations into such negligence
or misconduct.41 Furthermore, some states set up commissions to
consider problems with forensic science evidence in criminal cases,
for example, the Texas Forensic Science Commission,42 the Califor-
nia Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice,43 and the New
Since the mid-1990s, the impact of Daubert in federal and state
courts has been felt by fire investigators across the United States.
Where prior to this time, once a court recognized an experts quali-
fications, that experts opinion was typically admissible at trial, it is
now not uncommon for experts to find that under Daubert scrutiny,
all or a portion of their evidence can fail the reliability test and be
excluded from trial.31 This impact has been much more evident in
civil than criminal cases.32 However, this appears to be changing in
part because of an increasing sensitivity about the problems with
wrongful convictions based on unreliable forensic evidence in gen-
eral, and the frailties of fire scene indicators in particular. Enter the
second force to which we alluded in the introduction to this article,
the growing awareness about wrongful convictions stemming from
faulty forensic evidence.
York State Commission on Forensic Science.44 In the meantime, the
American Bar Association (ABA)45 also took action, creating the
Ad Hoc Innocence Committee to Ensure the Integrity of the Criminal
Process, which in 2006 produced a 162-page report with comprehen-
sive resolutions addressing the causes and prevention of wrongful
convictions.46
Even more significantly, in 2005 Congress directed that funding be
provided to the National Academy of Sciences to undertake what
would become a ground-breaking study on forensic sciences:47
The resulting analysis built upon prior [National Institute of
Justice] studies in 1999 and 2004, as well as several other
studies. In February of 2009, the [National Academy of Sci-
ences] issued a final report entitled Strengthening Forensic
Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The report
concluded that the scientific practices underlying many fo-
rensics disciplines are in many respects wanting. It provided
a number of recommendations on how to improve the sci-
entific foundations of the field, which are so important to its
ongoing and future credibility.48
The resulting publication, Strengthening Forensic Science in the
United States: A Path Forward (the NAS Report), took more than
two years to prepare, is over 300 pages in length, and contains a gen-
eral overview of issues relating to forensic sciences and the law, as
well as specific analyses of individual disciplines. The co-chair of the
committee that authored the NAS Report, the Honorable Judge Harry
T. Edwards, has provided this overview of its principal findings:
There are scores of talented and dedicated people in the fo-
rensic science community, and the work that they perform is
very important. However, the quality of practice in forensic
disciplines varies greatly. And this work often suffers great-
ly, because of:
the paucity of scientific research to confirm the validity and
reliability of forensic disciplines and establish quantifiable
measures of uncertainty in the conclusions of forensic
analyses;
the paucity of research programs on human observer bias
and sources of human error in forensic examinations;
the absence of scientific and applied research focused on
new technology and innovation;
the lack of autonomy of crime laboratories;
the absence of rigorous, mandatory certification
requirements for practitioners;
the absence of uniform, mandatory accreditation programs
29
 for laboratories;
the failure to adhere to robust performance standards;
the failure of forensic experts to use standard terminology
in reporting on and testifying about the results of forensic
science investigations;
the lack of effective oversight; and
a gross shortage of adequate training and continuing
education of practitioners.49
Flowing from its study, the NAS Report makes 11 recommendations,
the first of which is the most far-reaching, urging Congress to fund
and establish an independent federal agency to oversee the forensic
science disciplines in America. Additional recommendations include:
1) a requirement that terminology and minimum requirements
for information used in reporting and testifying about the
results of forensic science investigations be standardized,50
2) that research be conducted to verify the accuracy, reliability,
and validity of the basic premises underlying each discipline,51
3) that research be conducted on human error rates and bias in
forensic examinations,52
4) that [l]aboratory accreditation and individual certification of
forensic science practitioners should be mandatory,53 and,
5) that practitioners comply with industry standards that reflect
the best practices in their fields.54
ganizations have taken to identify and deal with these problems. This
lays the groundwork for the heart of this article, which is to explain
how these developments relate to challenges concerning the reliabil-
ity and admissibility of expert testimony by fire investigators under
Daubert, particularly in the context of the continuing development of
industry standards that are raising the bar for fire investigators.
Just as the state commissions mentioned above focus on forensic sci-
ence in a laboratory setting, so did the NAS Report, with one notable
exception it also addressed, albeit briefly, the science behind fire
patterns used in fire investigations. This issue is relevant because
among the forensic science disciplines that the report addresses is
the laboratory analysis of explosives evidence and fire debris. In
the context of addressing these disciplines, and after noting that the
laboratory analysis of explosives evidence is based on solid scientific
foundations, the NAS Report goes on to say:
By contrast, much more research is needed on the natu-
ral variability of burn patterns and damage characteristics
and how they are affected by the presence of various acceler-
ants. Despite the paucity of research, some arson investiga-
tors continue to make determinations about whether or not
a particular fire was set. However, according to testimony
presented to the committee, many of the rules of thumb that
are typically assumed to indicate that an accelerant was used
(e.g., alligatoring of wood, specific char patterns) have
been shown not to be true. Experiments should be designed
to put arson investigations on a more solid scientific foot-
ing.60

Because of the report, the Subcommittee on Forensic Science was It is because of this paragraph that the field of fire investigations is
established to advise and assist the [Presidents Committee on Sci- within the scope of the NAS Report and will feel its impact. Until
ence, National Science and Technology Council], and other coordi- the work of the IWGs is published, it is difficult to predict what
nation bodies of the Executive Office of the President on policies, future changes are in the offing for fire investigations. Nonetheless,
procedures, and plans related to forensic science in the national even though the NAS Report did not go into detail making specific
security, criminal justice, and medical examiner/coroner systems at recommendations concerning fire investigations as it did with some
the local, state, and federal levels . . . .55 To achieve its goals, the other forensic fields, and the IWGs recommendations are presently
Subcommittee has established five Inter-agency Working Groups unknown, the path forward for fire investigators seems to have been
(IWGs). The work of these IWGs includes: set forth to a large degree by the actions of one of the state commis-
sions on forensic sciences mentioned earlier.
Identifying and prioritizing extant research, development,
testing, and evaluation related to forensic science. While the state commissions on forensic science were largely set
Identifying existing standards/ best practices/ guidelines/ up to address the problems in crime labs rather than crime scene
protocols relating to identification, collection, preservation, investigations, the authority granted to the Texas Forensic Science
analysis, evaluation, comparison, interpretation, terminology Commission (TFSC) was cast more broadly.61 Consequently, seri-
and reporting. ous problems with fire and arson investigations about which the fire
Making recommendations for either improving existing investigation community had clearly known for well over a decade,
standards and protocols or developing new ones where needed. but to a significant extent ignored, were exposed publically due to
Recommending a process for defining and standardizing the combined efforts of the Innocence Project and the TFSC. These
forensic science terminology used in expert reports and developments are important to our premise of the rising storm for fire
testimony. investigators; therefore, we will briefly elucidate.
Identifying non-accredited laboratories, forensic science units,
and crime scene units. One aspect of a fire investigators job involves examining physical
Outreaching to and gaining input from forensic science and evidence at the scene and drawing inferences from the heated or
criminal justice organizations including state, local, and burned debris. Materials exposed to fire undergo changes that inves-
private practitioners, and other stakeholders.56 tigators can see or sometimes measure and such changes are known
as fire effects.62 For example, wood chars, metal and plastics melt,
The IWGs started their work in 2010 and their work is continuing. glass cracks and breaks, and material changes color or is covered in
It would appear that fire investigations are on the radar as the IWG soot. At an elementary level, these are examples of fire effects. When
on Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation invited pre- a recognizable configuration of such effects is discernible, investiga-
sentations from representatives of the Technical Working Group on tors call it a fire pattern,63 or sometimes, a burn pattern. Part of the
Fires and Explosions (known as TWGFEX-Scene)57 in July 2011, to duties of a fire investigator is to study and interpret the meaning of
address the scientific foundations of fire scene investigation and fire fire effects and patterns, drawing inferences about the initiation and
pattern interpretation.58 The results of the work of the IWGs is not development of the fire, eventually identifying its area of origin and
known at this time.59 cause.

To this point in this section, we have outlined the rising concern Interpreting fire patterns can be a very time consuming and complex
about wrongful convictions associated with problems in the forensic endeavor. The scientific knowledge base behind the interpretation of
sciences and some of the steps that government and private sector or- fire patterns continues to develop and inroads have been made into
30
the inferences that reliably can be drawn from indicators at a fire
scene. This growing knowledge base has also uncovered falsehoods,
so-called rules of thumb concerning conclusions that have been
drawn from data at fire scenes that have proven to be wrong. Many
of these rules of thumb were used to identify fire patterns or fire ef-
fects at fire scenes that were believed to indicate an incendiary fire,
indicative of arson. Examples are alligator charring of wood (evident
by large shiny blisters), collapsed furniture or bed springs, circular or
irregular burn patterns, and narrow V patterns, all of which were
said to be caused by the use of a liquid accelerant, making the fire
burn hotter and faster than what was considered normal, therefore
signifying an incendiary fire.
Two decades ago, these and other rules of thumb that had long been
used by fire investigators were flatly denounced. In 1992 the first
edition of NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations
(NFPA 921) was published by the National Fire Protection As-
sociation (NFPA), tackling head-on these rules of thumb, calling
them misconceptions. The NFPA is an international standards-
making organization and the NFPA 921 guide is a widely-dissemi-
nated, consensus industry standard published by the NFPA. At the
time of the 1992 publication, the technical committee responsible
for NFPA 921 included members from government organizations, as
well as national and international trade associations representing the
fire investigation community. Other publications issued in the same
period likewise questioned the scientific underpinnings of such rules
of thumb.64
Over time, revisions to NFPA 921 have added to the original list of
misconceptions, cautioning investigators about unreliable fire scene
indicators. For example, since a Tentative Interim Amendment to the
1995 edition of NFPA 921, which was passed in 1996, there has been
a clear warning about canine alerts that are not confirmed by labora-
tory analysis:
Canine Teams. Properly trained and validated ignitable liquid
detection canine/handler teams have proven their ability to
improve fire investigations by assisting in the location and
collection of samples for laboratory analysis for the presence
of ignitable liquids. The proper use of detection canines is to
assist with the location and selection of samples.
In order for the presence or absence of an ignitable liquid to
be scientifically confirmed in a sample, that sample should be
analyzed by a laboratory in accordance with [the section on
collecting forensic physical evidence]. Any canine alert not
confirmed by laboratory analysis should not be considered
validated. [Emphasis added.]65
This wording has survived into the current (2011) edition. Further
language was added in the 2008 edition to add information about
research showing that canines sometimes alert to pyrolysis66 prod-
ucts that are not produced by an ignitable liquid and have not always
alerted when an ignitable liquid accelerant was known to be pres-
ent.67 Additional paragraphs go on to outline the research that shows
canine alerts that are not confirmed by laboratory analysis are unreli-
able as evidence of the presence of an ignitable liquid accelerant.68
Another example is the caution that appeared in NFPA 921, 2004 edi-
tion, and continues into the current edition, instructing investigators
not to use the phrase pour pattern, which is misleading, and that an
inference that an ignitable liquid was used should be confirmed by
laboratory analysis:
The term pour pattern implies that a liquid has
been poured or otherwise distributed, and therefore, is
demonstrative of an intentional act. Because fire patterns
resulting from burning ignitable liquids are not visually
unique, the use of the term pour pattern and reference to
31
the nature of the pattern should be avoided. The correct term
for this fire pattern is an irregularly shaped fire pattern.
The presence of an ignitable liquid should be confirmed by
laboratory analysis. The determination of the nature of an
irregular pattern should not be made by visual interpretation
of the pattern alone.69
These and later studies published and available industry-wide70
warned about fire scene indicators or investigation techniques that
lack scientific validity. Unfortunately, these publications have not
stopped some investigators from using these indicators as evidence
for the prosecution as expert witnesses at trials of arson crimes or
for insurance companies denying claims based on the insured having
committed arson. The practice of using these disproven indicators as
evidence of arson has continued as is evident from case decisions.71
Even the threat of a challenge under Daubert or its state offshoots, in
addition to the repeated cautions in NFPA 921 about relying on these
misconceptions, has not stopped some investigators from using these
as data in their investigations and relying on them as evidence in
expert witness testimony.72
However, like a little snowball rolling down a mountain gaining
momentum and size, the outcry against this bad science has grown
louder and is spreading. Word eventually reached beyond the fire
investigation community through concerns raised by the Innocence
Project about two men convicted of arson, Cameron Todd Willing-
ham and Ernest Ray Willis. Here is the summary from the Innocence
Project website:
Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted in 1992
of setting a fire to his Corsicana, Texas, house in 1991 that
killed his three daughters. Four years earlier, Ernest Ray
Willis . . . was sentenced to death for setting a fire that killed
two women in Iraan, Texas. Both men claimed that they
were innocent of the murders. Similar arson investigations
including scientific methods that have been debunkedled
to both convictions. But the two cases reached very different
conclusions in 2004. Willingham was executed by lethal
injection on February 17, 2004. On October 6 of the same
year, Willis was freed after a state judge heard new evidence
pointing to his innocence and threw out his conviction.73
The Innocence Project subsequently commissioned a report by
independent experts to peer review the expert testimony in these two
cases, which concluded that neither of the fires was of incendiary
origin.74 The report was delivered in 2006 and concluded that even
though the prosecution experts in these cases believed their testimo-
ny to be truthful, they relied on interpretations of indicators that are
based on invalid science: To the extent that there are still investiga-
tors in Texas and elsewhere, who interpret low burning, irregular fire
patterns and collapsed furniture springs as indicators of incendiary
fires, there will continue to be serious miscarriages of justice.75
One of the main recommendations coming out of the report was that
to prevent future miscarriages of justice, individuals conducting
investigations of fire incidents must be provided with fundamen-
tal scientific knowledge of the physics and chemistry of fire as a
prerequisite for the practical application of fire dynamics within the
context of the Scientific Method.76 Further, the report urged further
action, including education of both defense and prosecuting at-
torneys, the use of court-appointed independent experts to evaluate
the prosecutions evidence of arson, laboratory confirmation of fire
debris from irregular burn patterns thought to be caused by ignitable
liquids, careful analysis of positive lab results to ensure the residues
were not from substances naturally occurring in the materials present
before the fire, and changes to the way the justice system responds to
newly discovered evidence (such as evolving scientific knowledge)
in wrongful conviction arson cases.77
On the strength of this report, the Innocence Project applied to have
the TFSC investigate these two cases and make recommendations
to address the problems with arson investigations apparent from the
review of these cases.78 TFSC agreed to undertake the investigation
and hired Dr. Craig Beyler to conduct an expert review of the fire in-
vestigations conducted in these two cases and compare them with the
standard of care for fire investigations and knowledge base respect-
ing fire science at the time of these investigations and at the time of
TFSCs review.79 Dr. Beyler submitted his report in August 2009, in
which he concluded:
The investigations of the Willis and Willingham fires did not
comport with either the modern standard of care expressed
by NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire
investigation texts and papers in the period 19801992.
The investigators had poor understandings of fire science
and failed to acknowledge or apply the contemporaneous
understanding of the limitations of fire indicators. Their
methodologies did not comport with the scientific method or
the process of elimination. A finding of arson could not be
sustained based upon the standard of care expressed by NFPA
921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation
texts and papers in the period 19801992.80
On April 15, 2011, TFSC completed its report on its investigation
(TFSC Final Report), submitting 17 recommendations intended
to be applicable to fire investigations statewide.81 These recommen-
dations include:
Adoption of National Standards: requiring fire investigators Addendum Report contained the following statement about the future
to adhere to the standards of NFPA 921. Even though there of the recommendations in its Final Report:
were no plans to accredit fire investigation agencies the
TFSC also proposed investigators pursue one benefit of
accreditation, which is to create a strategic plan setting
forth best practices in fire investigation, which meets current
recommended national standards such as the current
edition of NFPA 921, NFPA 1033 [Standard for Professional
Qualifications for Fire Investigator (NFPA 1033)], the the recommendations.92
National Institute
of Justices June 2000 report entitled Fire and Arson Scene
Evidence: A Guide for Public Safety Personnel . . .; and the
National Center for Forensic Science (Carl Chasteen), and
Technical/Scientific Working Groups January 2008 report
entitled Fire and Explosion Investigations and Forensic
Analyses: Near-and Long-Term Needs Assessment for State
and Local Law Enforcement. 82
Retroactive Review: Through re-examining cases when
developments in science may materially affect the original
conclusion.83
Enhance Certification: Requiring, over time, that all victions; Urging a Review of Questionable Convictions; Supporting
investigators comply with NFPA 1033, in particular the Judicial Review; Urging Use of NFPA 921; and Directing Distribu-
knowledge base and continuing education requirements tion,93 which provides, in part:
including the list of 13 in paragraphs 1.3.7 and 1.3.8.84
Collaborative Training on Incendiary Indicators: Including
the development and implementation of trainings and live burn
exercises, requiring at a minimum coverage of a list of topics
including fire science basics, incendiary indicators, myths and
misconceptions, and elimination of accidental causes.85
Standards for Testimony in Arson Cases and Enhanced
Admissibility Hearings in Arson Cases: Requiring
investigators follow NFPA 1033 in testimony and that
Daubert/Kelly86 admissibility hearings be conducted in arson
cases, to be aggressively pursued by prosecutors and defense
counsel, to help ensure the scientific testimony is both relevant
and reliable.87
Minimum Report Standards: That minimum reporting
standards are used to help ensure that investigators are
following the scientific method in accordance with NFPA
921. In this recommendation, the TFSC echoed the sentiments
of the NAS Report that there is a critical need . . . to raise
the standards for reporting and testifying about the results of
investigations.88
Training for Lawyers/Judges: That those responsible for
overseeing the education of lawyers and judges involved in
criminal justice require ongoing forensic science training.89
Interestingly, these recommendations mirror many of those in the
NAS Report, which was recognized and applauded by the TFSC.90
When read together, the TFSC Final Report and the NAS Report
provide a roadmap for the path forward in fire investigations.
The work of the TFSC respecting the Willingham and Willis cases
came to an abrupt halt later in 2011 when the Texas Attorney General
issued an opinion stating that the TFSC did not have jurisdiction
respecting evidence collected or offered in court before September
1, 2005. Further, its jurisdiction does not extend beyond accredited
laboratories, facilities, and entities of the Texas Department of Public
Safety.91 Thus, TFSC issued an addendum report in October, 2011
(TFSC Addendum Report) stating that it would not be issuing any
findings respecting the allegations of negligence or misconduct of the
fire officials involved in these cases or the Texas State Fire Marshals
office (SFMO). Notwithstanding that the jurisdiction and authority
of the TFSC in dealing with these cases was found lacking, the TFSC
The SFMO considers the [T]FSCs 17 recommendations
to be appropriate and fair. The SFMO is committed to ensuring
the best possible forensics are used in fire investigations in
Texas. The SFMO will consult with credible organizations,
seek expert advice and coordinate with the FSC to implement
The TFSCs Addendum Report goes on to summarize all of its
recommendations, together with the action the SFMO is taking on
each one. Together the NAS Report and the two TFSC reports place
considerable weight on the need for certification and complying with
industry standards. In terms of the field of fire investigations, TFSC
makes it clear that NFPA 921 and NFPA 1033 are industry standards
that fire investigators must follow, at least in Texas.
The authors expect other states and the federal government to follow
suit. Oklahomas State Senate, for example, is one of the leaders in
raising the bar for fire investigators in arson cases, having in March,
2010 passed A Resolution Acknowledging Obligation to Review Con-
That the Oklahoma State Senate acknowledges that the
government has an obligation to review arson convictions
obtained using evidence that is now known to be unreliable.
That the Oklahoma State Senate urges that government
attorneys and private attorneys and fire investigators review
questionable arson convictions.
That the Oklahoma State Senate supports judicial review
of any cases where attorneys submit that a conviction is
questionable due to faulty science having been used.
32
 That the Oklahoma State Senate urges the judicial branch, critically important to the future of fire investigations. While we have
law enforcement agencies, and other relevant government written extensively elsewhere about these two standards and their
entities in Oklahoma to employ NFPA 921 when conducting use in court,94 it is worthwhile to review them briefly in Part II of this
fire investigations. article, particularly in light of significant revisions in the offing.

NFPA 921 and NFPA 1033 are inextricably linked, and while the
latter standard has received less attention by the courts, both are

2.3 Conclusion to Part I

To this point, this article has reviewed two of the three forces
that we predict will come together, resulting in the most significant
difficulties fire investigators will have ever faced. The reliability
standards of Daubert will be stepped up a notch in fire cases due to
the increasing awareness about aspects of fire investigations where
reliability may be wanting. This awareness is rising by the combined
effect of publicity surrounding wrongful convictions in arson cases
and the NAS Report. Part II of this article first addresses the role of
NFPA 1033 and NFPA 921 in the coming of the perfect storm, and
then concludes with a more in-depth look at the early effects of the
NAS Report on the field of fire investigations, as well as the new
Daubert factors of bias and subjectivity that it introduces.

ENDNOTES
1
Disclaimer & Copyright: The information in this article is general in nature and may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances. This article contains
personal views of the authors for instructional purposes and is not legal advice. Do not act on the information or advice in this article in specific cases without the advice
of legal counsel. 2012 by Terry-Dawn Hewitt and Wayne J. McKennaall rights reserved.
2
For more information about the topics in this article as they pertain to the United States or to Canada, or to obtain permission to reproduce the whole or parts of this
article, please contact the authors through Terry-Dawn Hewitt at TDHewitt@McKennaHewitt.com.
3
Wikipedia contributors, Perfect Storm, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (May 20, 2012, 2:42 AM), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_storm#cite_note-
Rts20080101-0.
4
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), available at Westlaw BLACKS (search for adversary system) (A procedural system, such as the AngloAmerican legal
system, involving active and unhindered parties contesting with each other to put forth a case before an independent decision-maker.); cf. id. (search for inquisitorial
system) (A system of proof-taking used in civil law, whereby the judge conducts the trial, determines what questions to ask, and defines the scope and the extent of
the inquiry, which . . . . prevails in most of continental Europe, in Japan, and in Central and South America.).
5
These challenges are launched based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., (1993), 509 U.S. 579, or com-
parable decisions from state courts.
6
Id.
7
See generally TERRY-DAWN HEWITT & WAYNE J. MCKENNA, NFPA 921 AND NFPA 1033 IN COURT (October 2008), http://www.cfitrainer.net/ ((log-in re-
quired) follow Fire and Explosion Investigations: Utilizing NFPA 1033 and 921; then follow launch program hyperlink; then follow Reading List hyperlink; then
follow NFPA 921 and NFPA 1033 In Court hyperlink) (containing a more detailed summary of the Daubert decision, infra at note 12, as it applies to fire investiga-
tions).
8
Fed. R. Evid. 702. At the time of the decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., (1993), 509 U.S. 579, Rule 702 provided, If scientific, technical, or
other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
9
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
10
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (App.D.C. 1923).
11
Fed. R. Evid. 702, (as amended in 2000 to reflect Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., (1993), 509 U.S. 579.). In 2000, Fed. R. Evid. 702 was amended to
add the portion shown in italics, below:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified
as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based
upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the case.
12
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-593 (1993).
13
Id. at 593-595 (citations omitted).
14
Id. at 593, n.11.
15
Fed. R. Evid. 702. In 2011, all of the Federal Rules of Evidence were revised in an effort to make them easier to understand. The amended Rule 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a)
the experts scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the
testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.
16
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
17
526 U.S. 137 (1999).
18
Weisgram v. Marley Co., 169 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 1999) (2-1 opinion).
19
Id. at 516-517.
20
Id. at 522.
21
Id. at 518-521.
22
Id. at 517-522.
23
Id. at n3 (2000). The Supreme Court explains the limits of its ruling in Weisgram as follows:
We agreed to decide only the issue of the authority of a court of appeals to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law, and accordingly accept as
final the decision of the Eighth Circuit holding the testimony of Weisgrams experts unreliable, and therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence
702, as explicated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). We also accept as final the
Eighth Circuits determination that the remaining, properly admitted, evidence was insufficient to make a submissible case under state law.
24
Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 455-456 (2000).
25
See, e.g., Medex Online, Inc., Home Page, Dauberttracker.com, available at http://www.dauberttracker.com/index.cfm (last visited July 19, 2012) (Our critically
acclaimed Daubert Tracker now makes it possible to more accurately check the gatekeeping history of experts before retention or deposition.).
26
See, e.g., Alice B. Lustre, Annotation, PostDaubert Standards for Admissibility of Scientific and Other Expert Evidence in State Courts, 90 A.L.R.5th 453 (2012).

33
27
293 F. 1013 (App. D.C. 1923).
28
See, e.g., Ficic v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2005 WL 946696 (N.Y.Sup., 2005) (Slip Op.) (setting aside the verdict for the defendant and entering judgment for the
plaintiff, the court held that the fire experts opinion did not satisfy the general acceptance test from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (App.D.C. 1923), measuring the
experts opinion by the recommendations of National Fire Protection Assn Technical Committee On Fire Investigations, NFPA 921 Guide For Fire And Explosion
Investigations [hereinafter NFPA 921]. Such an invalid and clearly erroneous expert opinion, not recognized by the experts peers, mislead the jury into making an
irrational decision that a suspicious fire is proof of an intentionally set fire.); Ramirez v. State, 810 So. 2d 836, 853 (Fla. 2001) (excluding knife mark identification
expert testimony, saying, In order to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system in Florida, particularly in the face of rising nationwide criticism of forensic
evidence in general,[54] our state courtsboth trial and appellatemust apply the Frye [293 F. 1013] test, id., in a prudent manner to cull scientific fiction and junk sci-
ence from fact.) (citation omitted).
29
Am. Bar Assn Crim. Justice Section Ad Hoc Innocence Comm. To Ensure The Integrity Of The Crim. Process, Achieving Justice: Freeing The Innocent And Con-
victing The Guilty (2006), 51, available at http://apps.americanbar.org/crimjust/committees/innocencebook.pdf [hereinafter ABA Innocence Report] (citing Ramirez v.
State, 810 So. 2d 836, 844 (Fla. 2001); Wilson v. State, 803 A.2d 1044 (Md. 2002) as examples of the application of a reinvigorated Frye test.)
30
140 F.3d 915 (11th Cir. 1998).
31
See, e.g., Firemans Fund Ins. Co. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 394 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2005) (excluding evidence of unreliable experiments conducted by fire investiga-
tors); Booth v. Black & Decker, Inc., 166 F. Supp. 2d 215 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (excluding evidence of expert in product liability action); Bryte ex rel. Bryte v. Am. House-
hold, Inc., 429 F.3d 469 (4th Cir. 2005) (excluding experts evidence on causation for failing to have eliminated other possible causes).
32
See, e.g., State v. Schultz, 58 P.3d 879 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (permitting experts testimony on canine alert in the absence of laboratory confirmation contrary to the
recommendations of NFPA 921, supra note 28; Commonwealth v. Goodman, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 385, 765 N.E.2d 792 (2002) (affirming trial courts decision to admit
expert testimony with questionable relationship with NFPA 921, supra note 28.); State v. Davlin, 272 Neb. 139, 719 N.W.2d 243 (2006) (affirming defendants convic-
tion for second degree murder and found no abuse of discretion by trial court in admitting the expert evidence of two state fire experts called by the prosecution who
deviated from NFPA 921s recommendations, supra note 28.); US v. Santiago, No. 05-14155, 2006, 202 F. Appx 399 (11th Cir. 2006), LEXIS 26665 (Oct. 26, 2006,
11th Cir.) (affirming the defendants arson conviction and the district courts decision to admit the testimony of fire experts for the state who used the process of elimina-
tion to determine that the fire was incendiary.)
33
About the Innocence Project, InnocenceProject.org, http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/ (last visited July 18, 2012) (The Innocence Project is a non-profit
legal clinic affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University and created by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992. The project is a
national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system
to prevent future injustice. As a clinic, law students handle case work while supervised by a team of attorneys and clinic staff.).
34
About the Organization, InnocenceProject.org, http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/What_is_the_Innocence_Project_How_did_it_get_started.php (last visited
July 18, 2012).
35
About the Innocence Network, Innocencenetwork.org, http://www.innocencenetwork.org/ (last visited July 18, 2012).
36
Members, InnocenceNetwork.org, http://www.innocencenetwork.org/members (last visited July 18, 2012).
37
Understand the Causes, InnocenceProject.org, http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/ (last visited July 18, 2012) (listing as common causes, eyewitness
misidentification, false confessions/ admissions, government misconduct, informants or snitches, and bad lawyering).
38
ABA Innocence Report, supra note 29, at xii; Cal. Commn On The Fair Admin. Of Justice, Final Report (2008), 59-60, available at http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/
CCFAJFinalReport.pdf.
39
Natl Inst. of Justice, Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program, NIJ.GOV, http://www.nij.gov/topics/forensics/lab-operations/capacity/nfsia/wel-
come.htm (last modified May 4, 2012).
40
ABA Innocence Report, supra note 29, at xii (citing the Justice for All Act of 2004).
41
ABA Innocence Report, supra note 29, at xii.
42
About Us, Tex. Forensic Sci. Commn (2012) http://fsc.state.tx.us/about/. The Texas Forensic Science Commission was established in 2005. It investigates com-
plaints that allege professional negligence or misconduct by a laboratory, facility or entity that has been accredited by the Director of the Texas Department of Public
Safety that would substantially affect the integrity of the results of a forensic analysis. The term forensic analysis means a medical, chemical, toxicological, ballistic, or
other examination or test performed on physical evidence, including DNA evidence, for the purpose of determining the connection of the evidence to a criminal action.
Id.
43
Cal. Commn On The Fair Admin. Of Justice, Report And Recommendations Regarding Forensic Science Evidence (May 8, 2007), 1, available at http://ag.ca.gov/
meetings/tf/pdf/ccfaj_science.pdf.
44
N.Y. EXC. LAW 995-a: NY Code - Section 995-A (Commission on Forensic Science and Establishment of DNA Identification Index, available at http://codes.
lp.findlaw.com/nycode/EXC/49-B/.)
45
About the ABA, AmericanBar.org (2012), available at http://www.americanbar.org/utility/about_the_aba.html. According to its website, the American Bar Associa-
tion (ABA) is the largest voluntary professional association in the world. With nearly 400,000 members, the ABA provides law school accreditation, continuing legal
education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public. Its mission is To
serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession.
46
ABA Innocence Report, supra note 29.
47
Comm. On Identifying The Needs Of The Forensic Sci. Cmty. Et Al., Natl Research Council Of The Natl Acads., Strengthening Forensic Science In The
United States: A Path Forward (2009) [hereafter NAS Report], available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf (citations omitted).
48
Natl Sci. And Tech. Council, Charter Of The Subcomm. On Forensic Sci. Comm. On Sci. B, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/
ostp/forensic-science-subcommittee-charter.pdf (last visited July 18, 2012) (In 2006, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) issued a grant to the National Research
Council (NRC) of the National Academies to establish a Forensic Science Committee to study the forensic sciences and their application throughout the Nation.).
49
Hon. Harry T. Edwards, J., Solving the Problems That Plague the Forensic Science Community, 50 Jurimetrics J. 5, 19 (2009).
50
NAS Report, supra note 47, at 21-22.
51
NAS Report, supra note 47, at 22.
52
NAS Report, supra note 47, at 24.
53
NAS Report, supra note 47, at 25.
54
NAS Report, supra note 47, at 23-25.
55
Natl Sci. And Tech. Council, supra note 48, at B.
56
See Natl Sci. And Tech. Council, Comm. On Sci., Subcomm. On Forensic Sci., Charter Inter-agency Working Group Research, Development, Testing And
Evaluation, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/forensic-science-rdte.pdf, Charter Inter-agency Working Group Standards,
Practices And Protocols, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/forensic-science-stand-pract-prot.pdf, Charter Inter-agency
Working Group Education, Ethics And Terminology, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/forensic-science-education-ethics.pdf,
Charter Inter-agency Working Group Accreditation And Certification, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/forensic-science-
accred-cert.pdf, Charter Inter-agency Working Group Outreach And Communication, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
forensic-science-outreach-comm.pdf, (last visited July 18, 2012).
57
The Technical Working Group for Fire and Explosions (TWGFEX) and the Scientific Working Group for Fire and Explosions (SWGFEX) were founded in 1999 by
the National Center for Forensic Science at the University of Central Florida and work together to improve fire and explosion laboratory analyses and scene inves-
tigations. The mission of TWGFEX is to establish and maintain nationally accepted programs for the forensic investigation of fire, arson and explosion scenes and

34
devices. The mission of SWGFEX is to establish and maintain nationally accepted guidelines for fire, arson and explosive laboratory analysts. There are approximately
100 members of SWGFEX and TWGFEX at any one time. The membership is broad-ranging, including fire investigators, fire debris analysts and explosive examin-
ers. Members are from the public sector (federal, state, and local representatives) and from the private sector. More information is available at the TWGFEX website,
including TWFEX publications, available at http://ncfs.ucf.edu/twgfex/index.html (last visited July 18, 2012).
58
As a TWGFEX member, Terry-Dawn Hewitt (one of the authors), was one of the TWGFEX representatives who participated in the Inter-agency Working Group
(IWG) on Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) meeting.
59
As of July 18, 2012, the federal government website hosting all of the IWGs, which was in August, 2011 at http://www.forensicscience.gov/iwg.html, is not available
and is shown as under construction.
60
NAS Report, supra note 47, at 1723 (citations omitted).
61
Tex. Forensic Sci. Commn, supra note 42.
62
National Fire Protection Assn Technical Committee On Fire Investigations, Nfpa 921 Guide For Fire And Explosion Investigations [hereinafter NFPA 921]
6.1.1. (2011 ed.), (Fire effects are the observable or measurable changes in or on a material as a result of exposure to the fire.)
63
NFPA 921, supra note 62, 2011 ed., at 3.3.64 (definition of fire pattern).
64
See, e.g., J. J. Lentini, Lime Street Fire: Another Perspective, Fire And Arson Investigator Vol. 43 No. 1, 52 (September 1992) (reviewing evidence of a fire in Jack-
sonville, FL, and summarizing the results of test fires set in homes identical to the one at issue, concluding that the burn patterns were consistent with both an accidental
scenario and an arson fire in which a liquid accelerant was used); J. J. Lentini, D. M. Smith, et al., Unconventional Wisdom: The Lessons of Oakland, Fire And Arson
Investigator Vol. 43 No. 4, (June 1993) (challenging the validity of fire scene artifacts such as crazed glass and melted metal found in total burns or black holes, as
indicators of fire of incendiary origin); J. J. Lentini, Behavior of Glass at Elevated Temperatures, Journal Of Forensic Sciences Vol. 37 No. 5, 1358 (September 1992)
(questioning the widely held belief that crazed glass results from rapidly increasing temperature consistent with an accelerated fire, and concluding instead that glass
crazes from rapidly decreasing temperature).
65
NFPA 921, supra note 62, 1998 ed., at 9-5.3.4*.
66
NFPA 921, supra note 62, 2011 ed., at 3.3.134 (Pyrolysis. A process in which material is decomposed, or broken down, into simpler molecular compounds by the
effects of heat alone; pyrolysis often precedes combustion.)
67
NFPA 921, supra note 62, 2008 ed., at sub-para. 16.5.4.7.2*.
68
NFPA 921, supra note 62, 2008 ed., at sub-paras.16.5.4.7.316.5.4.7.6.
69
NFPA 921, supra note 62, 2004 ed., at sub-para. 6.17.8.2.5.
70
See, e.g., James H. Shanley, Jr., Usfa Fire Burn Patterns Tests: Report Of The United States Fire Administration Program For The Study Of Fire Patterns
(United States Fire Administration, 1997); Anthony D. Putorti, Jr. et.al., Flammable And Combustible Liquid Spill/bum Patterns, (Natl Inst. of Justice, 2001).
71
See, e.g., People v. Smith, 253 Ill.App.3d 443, 624 N.E.2d 836, 191 Ill.Dec. 648 (1993) (affirming defendants conviction of arson: [The expert] based his conclu-
sions [that the fire was incendiary] on having discovered deep charring patterns, or alligatoring, on the floor of the kitchen and his belief that only a deliberately
set fire could have erupted so quickly from the time the last employees left the restaurant and the fast, hot fire was detected. No trace of accelerant was detected by
laboratory tests. [The expert] testified that he conducted a thorough investigation of the fire scene and eliminated all other possible causes and sources of the fire.);
Nobel v. State, 2002 WL 575724 (Tex. App. 2002) (not designated for publication) (arson investigators found pour patterns, melted aluminum and heavy burn areas
consistent with the use of accelerants, but testimony by one expert that there was evidence of flash-back consistent with the use of an accelerant was ruled hearsay and
not admissible); B. Bennett Manufacturing Co. Inc. v. So Carolina Ins. Co., 692 So.2d 1258, 96-731 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1997) (arson investigator concluded area of origin
of fire was in area of heavy spalling indicating an accelerant had been poured). In terms of the use of evidence from canine alerts, see State v. Schultz 58 P.3d 879 (UT
App. 2002), Commonwealth v. Crouse, 447 Mass. 558 (2006), and Yell v. Commonwealth, 242 S.W.3d 331 (KY 2007), all of which deal with canine alerts unconfirmed
by laboratory analysis that were included in the investigators evidence and resulted in convictions that were upheld on appeal.
72
See, e.g., Expert Report and Aff. at paras. 49, Wohlers v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., No. 07-CV-03891-PJS-RLE (D. Minn. 2008), 2008 WL 5740024, (defendant
insurers fire expert testifying to a reasonable degree of certainty that fire was incendiary based on eliminating accidental causes and patterns on the floor indicative of
liquid pour pattern and that severe and low burn damage is strong evidence there was an accelerant present, but no mention made that there was laboratory confirma-
tion of the presence of an ignitable liquid); Expert Report and Aff. at 8-11, Capitol Communications, Inc. v. Secura Ins., No. 1:10CV01148 (W.D. Mich. March 7, 2010),
2010 WL 8523021 (affidavit of plaintiffs expert in action against defendant insurer refuting evidence of plaintiffs fire experts that the was incendiary based in part on
low burn, irregular floor patterns, severe burn intensity and canine alert with no laboratory confirmation).
73
News and Information, Improving Forensics to End Injustice, InnocenceProject.org, http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Improving_forensics_to_end_injus-
tice.php (last visited July 18, 2012).
74
Innocence Project Arson Review Comm., Report On The Peer Review Of The Expert Testimony In The Cases Of State Of Texas v. Cameron Todd Willingham And
State Of Texas v. Ernest Ray Willis (2006), available at http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/ArsonReviewReport.pdf [hereinafter Arson Review Report].
75
Id. at 3.
76
Id. at 40.
77
Id. at 4041.
78
Tex. Forensic Sci. Commn, Final Report Willingham/Willis Investigation 8-9 (April 15, 2009), available at http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/documents/FINAL.pdf [here-
inafter TFSC Final Report] (in 2008, the Innocence Project filed a formal complaint with the FSC alleging professional negligence and/or misconduct in the course of
the arson investigations and testimony given in the Willingham and Willis cases).
79
Letter from Texas Forensic Science Committee to Craig Beyler, Jan. 20, 2009, id. at Ex. 8.
80
Craig L. Beyler, Analysis Of The Fire Investigation Methods And Procedures Used In The Criminal Arson Cases Against Ernest Ray Willis And Cameron Todd
Willingham 51 (August, 2009), reprinted in TFSC Final Report Ex. 7.
81
TFSC Final Report, supra note 78, at 39.
82
TFSC Final Report, supra note 78, at 3940.
83
TFSC Final Report, supra note 78, at 41.
84
TFSC Final Report, supra note 78, at 4344, citing National Fire Protection Assn Technical Committee On Fire Investigator Professional Qualifications, NFPA
1033 Standard For Professional Qualifications For Fire Investigator 1.3.7-1.3.8 (2009 ed.) [hereinafter NFPA 1033]. The list of 13 mentioned in this recom-
mendation are contained in section 1.3.8 of the 2009 edition of NFPA 1033, which provides, The investigator shall have and maintain at a minimum an up-to-date
basic knowledge of the following topics beyond the high school level: at a post-secondary education level: (1) Fire science, (2) Fire chemistry, (3) Thermodynamics,
(4) Thermometry, (5) Fire dynamics, (6) Explosion dynamics, (7) Computer fire modeling, (8) Fire investigation, (9) Fire analysis, (10) Fire investigation methodology,
(11) Fire investigation technology, (12) Hazardous materials, (13) Failure analysis and analytical tools. For information on the proposed amendments to the list of 13,
see the discussion in Part II of this article.
85
TFSC Final Report, supra note 78, at 45.
86
This reference is to the unanimous decision of the California Supreme Court in People v. Kelly 549 P.2d 1240 (Cal. 1976), which explored the admissibility of expert
witness testimony based on novel scientific evidence, setting forth the tests to be used in determining the reliability and confirming the general acceptance test proffered
in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). In 1994, the California Supreme Court rendered its decision in People v. Leahy 882 P.2d 321 (Cal. 1994), consid-
ering but declining to adopt the approach set forth in Daubert, and reaffirming the Kelly/Frye rule. Texas follows a modified version of the Daubert decision.
87
TFSC Final Report, supra note 78, at 4849.
88
TFSC Final Report, supra note 78, at 49, citing the NAS Report, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., at 185.
89
TFSC Final Report, supra note 78, at 51.

35
90
National Academy of Sciences Report Page, Tex. Forensic Sci. Commn, available at: http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/nas-report/ (last updated March, 2009).
91
Tex. Forensic Sci. Commn, Addendum To The April 15, 2011 Report 3 (October 28, 2009), available at http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/2011/Willingham_
Willis_Addendum_2011.pdf [hereinafter TFSC Addendum Report].
92
Id. at 5.
93
Oklahoma State Senate, Resolution No. 99, March 23, 2010, available at https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/legislation/52nd/2010/2R/SR/99.pdf.
94
E.g., Hewitt & McKenna, supra. at note 7.

A PERFECT STORM BREWING FOR FIRE INVESTIGATORS IN COURT - PART I

TERRY-DAWN HEWITT has focused her
career on fire law. She is an attorney-at-
law in the US and a barrister and solicitor
in Canada. She has held leadership
positions on committees for the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA,)
the International Association of Arson
Investigators (IAAI,) and the Technical
Working Group for Fire and Explosions
(TWGFEX). She is also an adjunct
professor at the University of Denver
Sturm College of Law. She has been a member of the NFPA
921 Technical Committee on Fire Investigations since 1995 and
has taught courses and written extensively on the use of NFPA
921 and NFPA 1033 in court for over eighteen years in the US
and Canada.
WAYNE MCKENNA works in the field of
fire litigation out of Denver, Colorado. A
seasoned trial lawyer, Wayne McKenna
is a an attorney-at-law (US) as well as a
barrister and solicitor (Canada). He is
a member of the NFPA 921 Technical
Committee on Fire Investigations, the
Fire Investigations Standards Committee
of the International Association of Arson
Investigators (IAAI), and is formerly a
member of the IAAI Attorneys Advisory
Committee. He is a popular speaker, having lectured across
the U.S. on topics in his field of fire law. Wayne McKenna is an
adjunct professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of
Law, teaching Comparative Law.

Nikon Recalls Rechargeable Battery Packs Sold

with Digital SLR Cameras Due to Burn Hazard

July 12, 2012About 5,100 Nikon digital Sold at: Camera, office supply and mass
SLR camera rechargeable battery packs merchandise stores, in catalogs and on
have been recalled in the United States various websites nationwide. They were
because they can short circuit, causing sold with the digital SLR camera in Can-
the batteries to overheat and melt. ada from February 2012 through March
2012 and in the U.S. from March 2012
Incidents/Injuries: Nikon has received seven reports of through April 2012 for between $1,200 and $3,000.
incidents outside of the U.S. and Canada of the recalled
battery packs overheating. No incidents have been re- Manufactured in: Japan and China.
ported in the U.S. or Canada. No injuries have been re-
ported. Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled bat-
tery packs immediately, remove them from the camera
Description: This recall involves Nikon and contact Nikon for a free replace-
EN-EL 15 rechargeable lithium-ion ment battery pack.
battery packs with lot numbers E and
F. The battery pack was sold with the Consumer Contact: For additional in-
Nikon digital SLR D800 and D7000 formation, contact Nikon at (800) 645-
model cameras. The battery packs 6687 between 8 a.m. through 12 mid-
model number EN-EL15 and 7.0V night ET Monday through Friday, or
1900mAh 14Wh are printed on the back of the battery visit the firms website at www.nikonusa.com
pack. Only battery packs with an E or F in ninth
character of the 14-digit lot number located on the back Note: Health Canadas press release is available at http://cpsr-
of the battery pack are included in this recall. rspc.hc-sc.gc.ca/PR-RP/recall-retrait-eng.jsp?re_id=1644

36
Note from the CLASSIFIEDS
Editor:

Its hard to believe that we have been WANTED FOR SALE

in existence for six months already.
Our membership has grown consider-
ably in that time and I look forward
to continued growth in the next six
months.
We, at IFIRI, are looking forward to
our first seminar in November. We
have a great line-up of presenters and
this will be a great educational experi-
ence for the attendees.
Again, I would like to thank the au-
thors for their contributions. It makes
my job easier when there are articles
waiting to be published in the next is-
sues.
It was a tough sell to convince my
boss to again provide a complimen-
tary issue to the masses. I felt there
was information in this issue that is
a must-read for fire investigators. Un-
fortunately this will be the last com-
plimentary issue. We encourage you
to join the IFIRI to continue receiv-
ing FIRE INSIGHT. We have some
informative and relevant articles com-
ing in future issues.
If you have an article that you would
like to submit for publication you can
email it to me at:
pam@marketinggraphics.biz.
I will forward it on to be reviewed.
If you have any questions feel free to
contact any of our Directors. Their
contact information can be found on
page 42 in this issue.
Old turn-out gear for an East Afri-
can Fire Service. Any gear needed
including helmets, gloves, jackets,
trousers and boots. Rwanda
National Police Fire Service is a
small brigade that desperately
needs help to redevelop its services
and skills. As such we are trying
to find donors that can supply as
much old turn-out gear as possible.
At the moment, this fire service has
no equipment. Please respond to:
gareth@gwrassociates.com. All
help most gratefully received.
WANTED
FIRE INSIGHT is accepting articles
for their upcoming publications.
Articles will be peer reviewed for
accuracy prior to printing. If you
would like your article to be considered
please e-mail a copy to info@mar-
ketinggraphics.biz. Any graphics
or photos should be sent along as
separate jpg files.
WANTED
The International Fire Investigation
Research Institute (IFIRI) is accepting
white papers for their upcoming
seminars. If you are an instructor
and would like to be considered
for an instructor position please
e -mail your white papers to
tsullivan@ifiri.com or mail to: IF-
IRI, 233 E. Greenbriar Lane, Dallas,
Texas 75203-1013.
Protect your pants and shoes from
dirt and wet environments with
Garden Armours pant and show
covers. Pants are made out of Tom-
tex material that is light weight,
waterproof, chemical resistant and
easily slips on and off over clothes.
Pockets for cell phone and keys.
Check out our website at www.gar-
denarmour.com.
FOR SALE
One Golden Engineering XR-150
portable X-Ray Unit with Vidisco
VCU unit. This is one of the early
model units, but, it works, and is
capable of penetrating a 1/4 steel
plate. The LCD has a crack in it, but
the X-Ray tube functions just fine.
There are two batteries, but only
one holds a charge.This unit will function
with Polaroid film, or with digital
X-Ray software. This is the X-Ray
and VCU unit only, you must supply
your own laptop and software! The
unit retailed for $5,000 + VCU unit.
Asking $1,150, and buyer arranged
shipping with the shipper of their
choice, at their own expense. Ship-
ping is from the 75067 zip code. If
you have a shipping contract with
your favorite carrier, I can drop it off
at your shipper. For photos of the
unit, please check http://www.f3fire.
com/xr150. Contact Kelly Johnson,
214-432-5824.

Enjoy! How to place an ad in the classified section

of FIRE INSIGHT
Pam White, Editor
FIRE INSIGHT Ads should be sent, as a word document, to info@marketinggraphics.biz.
Please provide contact information with ad submission in case
there are any questions regard the ad or its category placement.
The cost of the ad is .50 per word with a minimum charge of $25
per classified ad.

37
 If youre looking for a comprehensive organization that will of-
fer everything you need to advance in your profession, then IFIRI
should be your first choice.

From the investigator needing to brush up on investigation tech-

niques or get the training required in his or her current position
to the new professional needing to learn the techniques from the
ground up, IFIRI has what you are looking for.

Membership Benefits

Membership in the IFIRI, $75 per year, includes discounts at

regional training classes. If you need a specific class in your area
or have a group that needs additional training for recertifi-
cation, give us a call. We have the instructors who can offer what you need.

IFIRI offers several certification programs to fit every phase of your investigation career. Need
to obtain a certified fire investigator designation? We have the programs that will allow you to
achieve this and other designations. Give us a call to find out what certifications are currently
available.

As a member of the IFIRI you will receive the organizations publication fire insight. The
publication is sent out quarterly and is filled with articles pertaining to every aspect of forensic
investigations.

Other benefits of membership include our membership directory, certificate of member-

ship suitable for framing, certification designation training, with certificate when completed,
participation on our website forum and more. Join now!

International Fire Investigation

Research Institute, Inc.

223 E. Greenbriar Lane

Dallas, Texas 75203-1013

Toll Free: 1-855-755-8600

Office: 214-753-8600 Fax: 214-753-8601

Website: www.IFIRI.com

Join the IFIRI, the premier International Fire Investigation

37Research Institute, Inc. IFIRI is your
one source for the latest investigation techniques, up-to-date training and extensive research
capabilities for the fire investigator.

Education, Research & Training at its Best!

38
 Application for Membership in:

International Fire Investigation Research Institute, Inc.

223 E. Greenbriar Lane
Dallas, Texas 75203-1013

I hereby make application for membership in the International Fire Investigation Research Institute, Inc., and agree to honor its Code of Ethics.

I qualify as a member in one of the following categories: Attorney, Insurance Claims, Law Enforcement Officer, Government Employee, Adjuster,
Military Personnel, Engineer, Chemist, Metallurgist, Fire Investigator, Laboratory Analyst, Other (involved in some other phase of forensic investi-
gations.)

Applicants Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) Date of Birth

Home Address

City Province or State Postal/Zip Code Country

Home Telephone Number (Include Area Code) E-mail Address

Employer Phone Fax Immediate Supervisor

Business Address City State/Province Postal/Zip Code Country

Professional Status:
Public Service Private Investigation Insurance Engineering Scientist/Laboratory Attorney
Fire Investigator Forensic Accountant Chemist/Scientist Manager Instructor Forensic Engineer
Other
(Discipline)

Length of time in current position? Description of duties?

Have you ever been convicted of a felony or any crime, felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude?: Yes No If yes, explain offense and date/location of conviction:

Enclosed is my check in the amount of $75.

Charge my membership dues to:
American Express Visa MasterCard

Account
# Expiration Date 3-Digit Code on Back of Card

Name on Card

Signature

Mail Correspondence to: Home Address Business Address

Mail to:

International Fire Investigation Research Institute, Inc.

223 E. Greenbriar Lane
Dallas, Texas 75203-1013
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Toll Free: 1-855-755-8600
Card No.: Office: 214-753-8600 Fax: 214-753-8601
Date Card Mailed:
Payment Type: www.IFIRI.com

39
Sherlock Holmes says: Look for what is there that
should not be and look for what is not there that
should be.
Kelly Johnson says: Remember, we are a Y2K
world now! Always remember to ask for witness pho-
tos or video. Most people have a smart phone with a
camera that is capable of taking photographs and/or
video. The cell phone always seems to be one of the
first things people grab when they evacuate, too!
Gareth Roberts says: Tell someone when you are
entering a fire scene and also when you come out!
Darle McClintock says: If you utilize a hydrocarbon
detector, commonly referred to as a sniffer (mechani-
cal or canine), as an investigative tool, always have
your sniffer alerts confirmed or negated through the
laboratory. This knowledge will assist with establish-
ing or eliminating hypotheses concerning ignitable
liquids in your analytical and testing processes.
Carter Roberts says: In reports, dont state the ob-
vious, and please avoid cop-speak. Upon arrival, I
found Most people can noodle-out that, if you are
there, you obviously arrived.
Ross Brogan says: Dont take or allow fuel-powered
equipment into a scene. This could contaminate the
scene, especially if refueling is carried out. Even if
refueling does not occur, the presence of fuel could
be alleged as mudding the water whether brought
to the scene intentionally or not.
Edward Roberts says: Do not post anything on a
forum that you would not want to read aloud at the
direction of an opposing attorney.
Ben Armstrong says: Remember the 3 Rules. Rule
1: Facts is Facts. Rule 2: Tell the Truth. Rule 3: I
dont know is a good answer. Other Rule: When in
trouble, when in doubt, see rule 1.
Pam White says: Do not trust spell check. You never
know what it will do to the meaning of your report.
Always proofread before submitting a report or send-
ing an email or text to a client. See damnyouau-
tocorrect.com for messages that were sent before
proofreading.
Michael Crichton, MD, says: Lets be clear: the
work of science has nothing whatever to do with con-
sensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Sci-
ence, on the contrary, requires only one investigator
who happens to be right, which means that he or she
has results that are verifiable by reference to the real
world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are
reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no
such thing as consensus science. If its consensus, it isnt sci-
ence. If its science, it isnt consensus. Period.
TIDBIT TIPS will be a continuing series in Fire Insight. If you
have tips or hints which will be helpful to forensic experts, please
send them to Carter Roberts at croberts@ifiri.com. You can go
to www.ifiri.com and vote on your favorite tidbit. The winner will
receive fee tuition to one of our seminars of his/her choice.
40
SEMINARS

Texas
November 26-30, 2012
International Fire Investigation
Research Institute
Professional Fire Investigator (PFI)
Certification Seminar
Crown Plaza Dallas
Near Galleria-Addison
Dallas, Texas
For more information, visit www.
ifiri.com or call 855-755-8600
March, 26-30, 2013
International Fire Investigation
Research Institute
Forensic Fire Investigator (FFI)
Certification Seminar
Dallas, Texas
For more information, visit www.
ifiri.com or call 855-755-8600
Michigan
October 10-11, 2012
Investigating Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Fires
Fire Findings Laboratories
Benton Harbor, Michigan
For more information, visit www.
firefindings.com, e-mail info@
firefindings.com or call (269) 925-
2200
Michigan
November 6-9, 2012
Investigation of Gas and Electric
Appliance Fires
Fire Findings Laboratories
Benton Harbor, Michigan
For more information, visit www.
firefindings.com, e-mail info@fire-
findings.com or call (269) 925-2200
This complimentary
issue of FIRE INSIGHT,
Volume 1, Number 2, has
been shipped to over
14,285 individuals in
the United States and
several hundred
internationally.
If you would like to
continue receiving FIRE
INSIGHT, a membership
application to IFIRI is
available on page 39.
See page 42 for
advertising
opportunities.

FIRE INVESTIGATION SEMINAR

DALLAS, TEXAS
The International Fire Investigation Research Institute (IFIRI)
is offering a week-long Professional Fire Investigator (PFI)
Certification Seminar.

November 26-30, 2012

at the Crowne Plaza in Dallas

Visit our website or give us a call for additional information

IFIRI members receive discounts on all seminars. Not a member? Join today to start saving on your training needs.

35
by carter d. robertsOver a 40+ year career in investigations, from homicide detective to president of two national forensics companies to
founder of this international organization, I have learned many lessons, both the hard way and the easy way.

Through the International Fire Investigation Research Institute (IFIRI), I would like to pass on some of the knowledge that I have accumu-
lated. Some of this will have to do with investigations, some with business philosophy, and all of it along the seam that joins the two. I hope
that you will find this information helpful in your journey to reach your professional goals.

Words And Phrases To Avoid In A Report

Using certain words or phrases in reports will raise red flags with an attorney, whose job it is to undermine the expert, his credibility and his
opinions. These red flag words can cause problems and should be avoided. Some of the most common include:

APPEARS, INDICATES, PRESUMABLY, SUPPOSEDLY, IS SAID and EVIDENTLY - These terms imply uncertainty.
PROBABLE, POSSIBLE, MOST LIKELY, COULD BE, SEEMS LIKE - These ambiguous words should be avoided.
IT SEEMS, IT INDICATES, APPARENTLY, I BELIEVE and other hedge words. - It is always best to use confident language.
If you dont know, say so dont speculate!
SUBSTANTIALLY - This is another ambiguous word to avoid.
VERY, EXTREMELY, REALLY, HIGHLY - These adverbs are inexact and not measurable scientifically. They are subjective.
OBVIOUSLY and CLEARLY - These terms can be used to make the expert appear patronizing or presumptive.
HE, SHE, IT, THEY and other pronouns - Pronouns are uncertain. It is best to use a proper noun.
Royal WE - This can be used to make the expert look silly, pompous or even dishonest.
COMPLETE, THOROUGH, METICULOUS, EXHAUSTIVE, SIGNIFICANT and other such words - These self-serving
words will hold the expert and his report to an extremely high standard.
MY FIRE SCENE EXAMINATION, MY INVESTIGATION - You are supposed to be objective. Why personalize a scene or
investigation by calling it yours?
THIS INVESTIGATOR - Police jargon should be avoided. Who talks this way? Is this everyday conversation? It makes a
report appear highschoolish.
DRAFT - This term alerts counsel to the existence of draft reports that are usually extremely fertile grounds for cross-examination.
LEGAL or LEGALLY - What is and is not legal is usually outside of the area of expertise of most experts.
WORK PRODUCT, CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE - These terms make it appear as though the expert is trying to hide something.
UPON ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE - We work for some very smart people. If you are examining the scene, most clients can
figure out that you had to arrive. Why state the obvious?
UPON OPENING THE HOOD - If you are examining a motor vehicle engine, most people will assume you probably had to
open the hood. Again, why state the obvious?
AUTHORITATIVE to describe a text. - Often the attorney will ask you if you consider NFPA 921 to be an authoritative text
or a standard in the industry. If your answer is yes then you are saying that you agree with everything printed in the text. This
term has special legal significance that may allow a cross-examining attorney to question the expert about everything in the text.
THANK YOU FOR THE ASSIGNMENT - Experts often already look like hired guns. Why put words in a report that a
lawyer can use as a club to beat you over the head. This sentence makes you appear to be your clients puppet.

Remember, you should dictate or write every sentence in your report with the idea of being able to defend that sentence in court. In some
cases you will!

I hope you have found this column helpful. Each future issue of FIRE INSIGHT will include more advice developed over the course of my
investigative career. In the next issue look for: Differences And Similarities Between Civil And Criminal Investigations.

42
Meet the demands of the most rigorous jobs with GAME Workwear from

GAME ACTIVE APPAREL Distributor

Free GAME Workwear catalog: Call 203 238-7028 or email info@marketinggraphics.biz

Custom silkscreen and embroidery available

 CORPORATE OFFICE
ADVERTISERS INDEX CARTER D. ROBERTS / President and CEO
214.753.8600; croberts@ifiri.com

PAM WHITE / Secretary

Analytical Forensic Associates . . . . . . . . . . inside front cover 214.753.8600; pwhite@ifiri.com

TERRI SULLIVAN / Office Manager

214.753.8600; tsullivan@ifiri.com
Armstrong Forensic Laboratory, Inc.. . . . . . inside back cover
DIRECTORS
BENJAMIN ARMSTRONG / Director
Chemaxx4sale.com.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 USA
barmstrong@ifiri.com

ROSS BROGAN / Director

Delta-Xray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Australia
rbrogan@csu.edu.au

MARCO DORRESTEIJN / Director

EFI Global. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Netherlands

marcodorresteijn@upcmail.nl

KEN GOODNIGHT / Director

USA
F.A.S.T.Forensic and Scientific Testing. Inc. . . . . . back cover ken.goodnight@athiero.com

GARY HAUN, JR. / Director

USA
Firensics, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 a1firesleuth@cs.com

KELLY JOHNSON / Director

USA
kellyjohnson2@me.com
Forensic Fire Facts, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
DARLE McCLINTOCK / Director
USA
dlmcclintock@vownet.net
Great Lakes Analytical, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 DAVID NOBLE / Director
New Zealand
firegate@xtra.co.nz
IFIRI Professional Fire Investigator Seminar. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 GARETH ROBERTS / Director
England
gareth.w.roberts@hotmail.com

Lomprey Investigations, llc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

EDITORIAL
IFIRI / Publisher
Marketing Graphics & Promotional Advertising. . . . . . . . . . 43 223 E. Greenbriar Lane
Dallas, Texas 75203-1013
855-755-8600
214.753.8600, Fax 214.753.8601

NASP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 PAM WHITE / Managing Editor

203.238.7028; pam@marketinggraphics.biz

BILL WHITE / Graphic Designer

Unified Investigations & Sciences, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 203.238.4700; mr.ubsy@cox.net

Editorial / Sales Office located at

445 Colony Street, Meriden, CT 06451
Wendell Hull & Associates, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 213.238.7028; fax 213.238.3062

Advertising Deadlines
Spring Issue March 15
Summer Issue June 15
Fall Issue September 15
Winter Issue December 15

Accepted formats for advertising are: Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign CS4 or high res pdf files. All type should be outlined
to maintain the true character of the ad. Ads can be e-mailed to info@marketinggraphics.biz.

44
 F
;=
G

JL
9LA

A>A
<AL

;9
=

L
;J

AGF
9;

KL9F<9J<AR9LAGF