For years, tenured fire investigators would impart their varied skills and wisdom upon fire scenes as they kicked through the ashes looking for the mysterious cause of a fire. Their uncanny ability to determine the cause of a fire in a matter of hours; sometimes minutes; and on occasion in moments, was awe-inspiring and fodder for the making of legends.

Some reveled in the limelight as they spewed their respective visions and insights on how the fire started based on years of experience and cryptic interpretations of smoke color, broken glass, color of the flame, damaged concrete, and flattened bed springs to name a few. For the most part, those only interested and in awe of the older investigators skills, were the young sleuths following in their footsteps.

Not long ago, these legends began to meet a formidable threat to their "expertise" in the form of a single word. "Why?" Nothing would strike fear in the heart of an ash-kicker quicker than a young protégé asking "why". Why does spalled concrete indicate arson? Why does the glass, broken as it was, mean it was a fast moving fire and must have been arson? Why does smoke color indicate arson, or accidental? The answers were an unsatisfying "that's the way it has been for years" or an even quicker "because." Clearly, there existed no substance to their claims. Thankfully the methods of conducting fire investigations have changed for the better over the years. "One of the biggest changes include the technical aspects that are now part of many investigations," according to Joe Buettner, with Crawford & Company. "There are more sophisticated technologies at our disposal although translating this into results is still tough."

As more and more investigators became exposed to serious flaws in fire scene analysis, they began searching for the answers. The results revealed serious shortcomings in the assumptions of old. The very method used in testing the veracity of these theories and long-accepted "truths" is the same method that fire investigators should be using on the fire scene today; The Scientific Method. "Although arson is still hard to prove, superior methods and tools do allow us to pursue subrogation with better results," Buettner said. Now that the overall playing field of fire investigations has been raised, Buettner stated, "It becomes more evident when there is a lack of technology used or the investigator does not keep up with his peers and other industry advances."

The scientific method is defined as the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of a hypothesis.(1) This very definition exemplifies the process to follow in a thorough fire scene investigation.

The National Fire Protection Association publishes NFPA 921 "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations." In 921, the basic methodology recommended for a fire scene investigation relies on the use of a systematic approach and attention to all relevant details. The systematic approach recommended by 921 is the scientific method.

The definition of the scientific method can be broken down into six specific steps.

• Recognizing the need
• Defining the problem
• Collect data
• Analyze the data (Inductive reasoning)
• Develop a hypothesis
• Test the hypothesis (Deductive reasoning)

(1) National Fire Protection Association, 1 Battermarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy MA , 02269-9101. NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigatons, 1998 Edition.

Copyright 2001 Professional Investigative Engineers. All rights reserved.