POST: His thoughts on the recently concluded retrial - which underline his view that, "here's more evidence that fire investigation, as a forensic domain, hasn’t come as far as some might suggest," published on a fire investigation forum. ( Paul Bieber, is Director and founder of The Arson Project. (http://thearsonproject.org): Mr. Bieber
is a certified fire and explosion investigator (CFEI) and
has nine years of investigative experience with a concentration in fire
cause and origin, death scene, and insurance fraud investigations, and
an additional 15 years in fire suppression and emergency medical
services as a firefighter and paramedic. He has been retained as an
expert in numerous arson cases. I am grateful to Mr. Beiber (author of a
guest post on this Blog) for permission to use his post to the forum. HL);
GIST: "I did not attend this trial but from what I have gathered from following
along in the general media and reading the original fire reports and
court documents, the government’s expert appears to have testified that
there were three, distinct areas of origin found in the living room and
adjacent dining room.
Knowing that NFPA 921 correctly defines “multiple fires” as “…two or
more separate, nonrelated, simultaneously burning fires” (NFPA 921
(2014), 24.2.1), and goes on to provide examples of multiple fires as
“fires in different rooms, fires on different stories with no connecting
fire, or separate fires inside and outside a building” (NFPA 921 (2014)
24.2.1.1), it is surprising – and frankly, baffling – how such a
conclusion can be made at the Dougherty fire.
........Again, this type of testimony –although in sharp conflict with NFPA 921 –
is as common as it is disturbing. But because NFPA 921 is viewed by
most of the fire investigation community as a simple guide, this form of
testimony and the conclusions on which is based is regularly admitted
in court.
The difference between this type of testimony and the claptrap leading
to the conviction and execution of Todd Willingham is illusory. In both
cases the state’s expert witness followed a non-existent standard,
applied the unmeasured and, in this case, clearly unreliable methodology
of Fire Pattern Analysis, as viewed, measured and interpreted only
through the mind of the investigator.
.......The Dougherty case is a prime example of why modern fire investigation has far more in common with forensic odontology (see: [theintercept.com])
than it does a legitimate forensic discipline, and why the broader
forensic science community does not take fire investigation seriously.
That the prosecutor at the Dougherty trial would characterize the
defense expert as a whore (“would whore himself out and say anything”)
for having the gall to confront the State with a counter narrative which
conforms to NFPA 921 and is willing to acknowledge the obvious
limitations of analysis based on a fire scene examination, is a
different subject entirely."
The entire post can be read at:
http://www.forumworld.com/arson-investigations/read.php?3,25051,25069#msg-25069
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy;
Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
