Fire Cause: Heaven Only Knows!

By: Michael Lane.

Mr. Lane is a twenty five year veteran of fire investigations. He has taught college level courses in
Criminal Justice and is the author of numerous articles in professional magazines and law journals.

Some years ago a fire chief in Renselaer County, New York was testifying in an arson case. The defense attorney asked him one question that nearly derailed the proof of arson. The defense Attorney said “Chief isn’t it a fact that fire investigations are ninety percent guess work and ten percent science?” To which the agreeable Fire Chief responded “yes”. That was not a good answer as the other side saw it.

Unfortunately that may still be the case in some jurisdictions despite the Daubbert Ruling and NFPA 921. Such a scenario unfolded for this author in a matter being handled in a Western part of the country not long ago. It raises the specter that cheerfully agreeing to the cause of a fire to please one side or the other can be costly to the insurance company, the insured, or the manufacturer of a particular product. In the case of a manufacturer being sued on a claim that the product caused a particular event may be justifiable if in fact there is real proof to support the contention. Otherwise, there is costly litigation that could be avoidable. In the case of an insured the denying of a claim based on an allegation of arson can be devastating in both a criminal and a civil case.

In the Western United States case, a building was destroyed by fire under unusual circumstances. The problem was that the state fire marshal took eleven samples and all were negative. He looked at a few remaining wires and reported that all of the arcs and shorts that he looked at by eyeballing the remains indicated “secondary shorts” that did not cause the fire. He dismissed the aluminum wire that took a ninety degree turn and the burned beam at the juncture of the aluminum wire as “secondary”. The actual aluminum wire was consumed in the fire.

The State Fire Marshall brought in a backhoe to remove the debris from the basement. That debris was actually all of the burned material from the two floors above. He “eyeballed” the electric distribution box and declared that it was operating properly and did not cause the fire. The manufacturer of the distribution panel box was never reported.

The state Fire Marshall reported “unusual” burn patterns on the concrete in the demised basement after it was cleared. He also noted “spalled concrete” and black burn patterns. He took concrete samples and all were reported to be negative. In taking his samples he used flour to absorb the alleged accelerant. That is a procedure I would not recommend for fear of contamination as an issue.

Four days later a private insurance investigator arrived on the scene. There was not much to look at as most of the debris now sat on the lawn and fields of the now demised building as a pile of rubble. Undaunted, he eliminated electrical causes of the fire. He cheerfully did “a sniff” test on some items found on the lawn and reported that the building had been intentionally burned AND HE SMELLED GASOLINE. It is unknown at this point if he went to K-9 accelerant school prior to doing his “sniff” test.

The Daubbert ruling was put on this earth to be a companion to the fire investigator and not a hindrance to his hopeful outcome.

“Secondary” electrical shorts as a concept with little else left to evaluate is dubious at best. The age-old question of “cause or consequence” should not be ignored. Just what technique is used to review “secondary” electrical shorts is unclear given the degree of destruction and the lack of scientific testing. Worse no wire samples were taken and no photographs of any value exist.

There is a theory of “arc mapping” that is supported in some circles as a way to review the first electrical event that takes place. The problem is that you need an electrical system to examine and in addition you must actually do the arc mapping. Two years after an event it is difficult to map a series of electrical events. It would be akin to doing a “depth Char” diagram and analysis long after the building had been removed. It just will not work. As P.T. Barnum may have said “its all done with smoke and mirrors.”

For the Private Fire Investigator to be able to support the theory that the fire was intentionally set after the building had been cleared out of all debris is a clear miracle from heaven.

Fortunately, the news is not all bad. Daubbert, NFPA 921, and ASTM Standards may be forcing us to revisit the protocol of fire investigations and our methodology. For the moment there may still be too many mistakes being made.