problem solving in fire investigations handout 2

–HTTP://WWW.FIREARSON.COM JANUARY 2008–FIRE & ARSON INVESTIGATOR20

AS OUR PROFESSION PROGRESSES towards more of a science-based profession, most investigators are embracing the meth-odology suggested in the scientific method as the process one can use in answering questions as to the origin and cause of a fire or explosion. Where there have been numerous articles explaining the procedure as to what are the steps and how testing is done, there has been little explanation of what is behind the terms, hypothesis and hypothesis testing. As our knowledge increases, we develop a better understand-ing that allows one to be more comfortable in performing to process. The purpose behind the development and testing of a hypothesis is to assist the investigator in lowering his or her potential error rate when reaching a conclusion. Different documents are not uniform regard-ing the number of steps in the scientific method, but they all contain basic components the investigator must complete if the process is to be valid. Phrases used in describing the procedure “Developing a Hy-pothesis,” and “Testing Your Hypothesis” has become synonymous with the proper procedures to be followed in reaching a conclusion.

When it comes to the word “Hypothesis” or the term, “Testing a Hypothesis” investigators, like many other persons first hearing these terms, do not understand the meaning, and therefore take a negative position when hearing it used. Like anything new there is a hesitant in accepting and working within the process. It is natural with any process; the more comfortable a person is, the more the acceptable that person is to performing the task in a specific way. It is for this reason, it is important for the investigator, not only have a good work-ing knowledge about how to perform the task, but understand the rea-soning behind the tasks. To do this one needs to answer the following questions. What is a “Hypothesis,” and what does the term “Testing the Hypothesis mean? A hypothesis is nothing more than a suggested explanation of an event or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple events that took place ending with the incident taking place. The hypothesis testing process is nothing more than a tool available to assist the investigator in reaching the correct conclusion as to the cause of the incident. The objective of the testing process is to reach a point that after all testing there is no negative influence on the final hypothesis because of the testing. It is under-stood that through the testing process, some testing will disprove the suggested hypothesis, but the important factor is, when this process is used and the testing cannot disprove the hypothesis the investigator then has a viable explanation for what took place during the fire or explosion incident.

For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable through experi-ment or a cognitive process1. Everyone knows the meaning of the word experiment, but how many understand the meaning of the word “Cognitive”? With one’s use of the scientific method in conducting the investigations of different incidents, one will hear and see the word

“Cognitive” many times where there is a discussion of hypothesis test-ing. The cognitive process is the manipulation of events, concepts, images, thoughts or other symbolic material in the mind. The cogni-tive process is the higher mental processes of reasoning, planning and problem solving2. This is nothing more than a systematic progression from “Testing the Hypothesis,” to “Cognitive Process” and finely to the meat of the subject “Problem Solving.” The investigation of a fire is nothing more than solving a specific problem through the identifica-tion of the reason for the incident. Now we take this process one-step further when it comes to the scientific method of problem solving, here there are three components to address, the collection of data, the development of a hypothesis, and the testing of the hypothesis. It must be recognized that not all persons perform the functions necessary to complete these tasks in the same way, and the difference in the way the task is preformed, in most case, does not have a direct relationship to the accuracy of the findings.

Any hypotheses, which one expresses as being a scientific hy-pothesis, must be testable within the abilities of science, because, without the support of science, the hypothesis remains simply an idea without use3. The hypothesis one develops after collecting all avail-able data must also predict that certain events will occur if certain events take place within a specific time and order. Once there is a hypothesis, there needs to be a method to determine if this hypothesis is supportable, and to do this we test the hypothesis with the idea of disproving the hypothesis. In the general scientific community, there is a consensus of the theory that proof in science cannot be attained, however the more critical the test that the hypothesis passes, the more confidence we can have in the hypothesis4,5.

When a fire investigator develops a single idea, model, or hypoth-esis to explain a set of observations, it must be understood that this method is fraught with many pitfalls that can lead to incorrect conclu-sions. First, a fire investigator with a single hypothesis is like a hen with one chick, she defends this one chick because it is the only one that she possesses. Second, data that does not fit the hypothesis is easy to ignore because there is no other place to use it, and this can lead to the discarding of correct data. The data collected must support the hypothesis, yet the investigator must understand the best-supported hypothesis can still fail on a single critical observation. Third, a fire investigator with a single hypothesis has his or her ego at stake, and thus resists counter hypotheses made by other investigators or data available. Because fire investigators are like everyday people, when it comes to their egos, there is resistance to alternative hypotheses, resulting in a loss of objectivity, and sometimes bitterness ensue and controversy abound when others try to disprove that individual’s hy-pothesis6.

By—James L. Mazerat and Robert A. Green

JANUARY 2008–FIRE & ARSON INVESTIGATOR HTTP://WWW.FIREARSON.COM– 21

It is very important for one to understand that in testing a hy-pothesis, one can only disprove the hypothesis, and the hypothesis itself can never be proven correct beyond all doubt. Not disproving the hypothesis through testing does not guarantee the hypothesis is correct, because the results of testing only mean the data used in the testing process was insufficient to disprove the hypothesis at the time of the testing7. Albert Einstein, because of his profession as an inven-tor, had much experience with the development and testing process when it came to a hypothesis, and in doing so he said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” One only need to look at the changes brought about due to the advancement of science over the last couple of decades to understand how the development of new facts to be used in the test of an accepted hypothesis will now prove that hypothesis incorrect.

In reaching a conclusion, the investigator must be satisfied he or she did everything possible to determine that none of the available data will disprove their hypothesis. In the testing process, an investi-gator can use information from many different sources to conduct this evaluation. The investigator can discuss the options with others in their profession, conduct experiments, or conduct research based on work produced by others, because, the more diverse the sources one uses in conducting evaluations or testing, the greater the anticipated degree of accuracy in the hypothesis test process. Many investigators fail to think outside the box, and design the testing of their hypothesis on a specific document, such as NFPA 921. While different schools, books, and other documents will aid an investigator in evaluating a hypothesis, these sources may not contain all the information avail-able on the subject. Because each incident is so specific, there is little chance one book or a document will give the investigator all the infor-mation needed to develop and then conduct the testing of the hypoth-esis. As one finds disagreement in different test, it is also a miscon-ception for an investigator to believe it is possible to get everyone to agree with the hypothesis developed. There will always be someone who will disagree with the hypothesis developed by the investigator, for the reason that fire investigation is not an exact science, and it is not possible to replicate what took place during an incident. This occurs because of the factor that one must use their perception of their observations to reach a hypothesis, and two people have differ-ent perceptions after viewing the same object; there will always be the potential for disagreement.

The best process to use when developing a hypothesis is the “Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses,” which contain simulta-neous and continuous development and testing of a number of hy-potheses. The method of multiple working hypotheses is when a fire investigator thinks of all possible hypotheses that might account for his or her observations, and then goes on to test each one that has been developed. When it comes to testing each hypothesis developed through your observations at the scene, it is not necessary that there be a physical testing process for each one. While you are performing any task, your brain is constantly gathering information based on your observations, testing this data using data it has stored, and then reach-ing a conclusion. The testing is all taking place in your mind, and this to some extent takes place as you conduct your investigation. Using this method of continuous multiple working hypotheses the investiga-tor is attaching his or her ego, not to a single hypothesis, but to the development and testing of all of the possible hypotheses.

The importance of understanding this methodology is the most efficient known method of advancing science through hypothesis and theories. Because it is accepted that one can never prove the hy-pothesis and theories in science only disprove them, the true answer may never be attainable, but the supporting evidence, resistance to disproof, and the logical data from the findings that fit with other scientific knowledge on the subject can provide the investigator with a specific degree of confidence in the conclusion. By elevating the degree of confidence about a conclusion, a fire investigator can make

a valuable decision about the issues even if an answer does not have a high level of certainty8.

Remembering one only develops a hypothesis only after evaluat-ing all available data, and then from this information the person has a number of different ways to test the hypothesis. There are three ways for one to go about in disproving a hypothesis. These are:

1. What is found contradicts the hypothesis.2. In replicating the event, the same base data fails to repro-duce the same event.3. It is supplanted by a new hypothesis, which explains more of the data, or explains the same data more elegantly9.

If fire investigation were a pure science, which allowed a control of all environments making replication possible, it would be easy to test a hypothesis by running a test using the same data. The idea of this type of testing being practical can be determined through the re-sults of the testing conducted by Daniel Madrzykowski at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In the report, he indi-cates it was not possible to produce general pattern consensus while reproducing the same scenario. There were cases where the replicated experiments also produced some significant differences in the severity of burning, locations of patterns and types of patterns present10.

If all testing of a hypothesis is done with the intention of disprov-ing the hypothesis, then a single test, if confirmed, may disprove a hypothesis, but it cannot prove the hypothesis to be correct. A given series of tests may corroborate the hypothesis, but a subsequent ex-periment under different conditions may disprove it. With this being possible, there always exists the possibility that even though one per-forms all the testing possible to confirm his or her hypothesis, another person can develop new test criteria that disproves the hypothesis. It is for this reason, no matter what the status of the investigation; one must be willing to re-evaluate the hypothesis using the different criteria.

It is a consensus in the scientific community that there is no abso-lute knowledge in science, there is only progress, which is optimisti-cally a progression towards a more complete and accurate understand-ing of the event. From our past, we have seen many times that new observations will cause changes in current scientific opinions, or the development of better theories. Some hypotheses offer such strong predictions, and withstand testing for such a long period of time, that data becomes generally accepted, first as “theories” and then as “laws of science.” However, even these are not “absolute,” In that a sci-entific law is just a “very strongly supported inference.” We do not know, with any degree of certainty that any one theory or hypothesis will survive in the light of new data or technology. As an example, for how many years were we taught the certainty that Pluto was a planet? Until recently, this hypothesis was correct, but now there are a number of scientists claiming there is new data that does in fact disprove this hypothesis. Presently, others are testing the data used to develop their hypothesis on the subject.

An investigator must be careful when evaluating his or others hypothesis not to let a bias interfere with how the hypothesis tested11. There are a number of different kinds of bias for the investigator to recognize if the assessment of the hypothesis is to be valid, and for this reason, the person conducting the evaluation of the hypothesis must take time to consider their process and determine if any of these biases are present before conducting the review12.

Another bias is known as “Anchoring,” which is a term used in psychology to describe the tendency persons have to rely heavily, or “anchor,” on one piece of information or knowledge when conducting an evaluation of their own or another’s hypothesis. During the normal evaluation process, individuals will find themselves anchoring their

–HTTP://WWW.FIREARSON.COM JANUARY 2008–FIRE & ARSON INVESTIGATOR22

ideas to a specific selection of facts or information and they then tend to make adjustments using those predetermined facts to adjust the data used in their evaluation of the hypothesis. The problem with anchor-ing is that once the individual has set the anchor, there becomes a bias to which the information is the only correct data. This reaction may cause the discarding of relevant data13.

A cognitive bias is one that includes a wide range of affects on the person during the problem solving process. These affects include very basic statistical, social attribution, and memory errors that are common to all human beings. The purpose in designing the scientific method is to minimize the affect of biases relating to probability and decision making from any one observer.

Conformation bias is the concept that says because we like to be right, humans will instinctually seek out information to confirm what they believe to be true, even if the evidence may be flawed. Hopefully, investigators today have come to grips with this, for even if something does not seem true, it may yet be. Trying to force investigations to fit a perceived outcome, either by stifling other ideas or giving in to con-formation bias, will not produce good scientific results. Instead, in-vestigators must treat the investigation process by applying the same scientific methods to them as to any other theory.

In conclusion, it is more important that all hypotheses developed during the investigation go through a testing process, and that the in-vestigator must be careful to address all possible biases that could reflect on the hypothesis. Only when the investigator has used all available data to test multiple different hypotheses, and none of the testing disproves the hypothesis, should he/she give any validity to a specific hypothesis. In using logical inference to develop a conclu-sion, the investigator must consider all possible serious challenges. The investigator should discard any hypothesis, after an examination by the deductive reasoning method, shows it is incorrect. It can take many years before there is data of such quality that it will disprove a hypothesis, so just the fact that it is not disproved at this time, does not mean it will always be correct. The investigator must be willing to accept all challenges to his or her hypothesis, and be willing to use this new information to repeat the testing process on their hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with re-examining one’s conclusion, for it is far more damaging to all involved to be wrong in one’s conclusion and continue to try to support that conclusion. Remember, testing of the hypothesis one hundred times may never disprove the validity of the hypothesis, but testing using new data on the one hundred and first time may disprove its accuracy. It is more important at the end to be correct. ●

REFERENCES1. Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigation, Section 4.3.6, 20042. Formal Description of the Cognitive Process of Problem Solving, Vincent Chiew, Yingxu Wang, icci, pp. 74-83, Third IEEE Interna-tional Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI’04), 20043. Hypothesis, J.L. Stanbough, 2007, http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Hypotheses.html4. A Gentle Reminder that a Hypothesis is Never Proven Correct, nor is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True, Jacqueline McLaughlin, Journal of College Science Teaching, September 20065. Creative Paleontology, Jere Lipps, University of California, Berkeley, November 15, 20006. This is Science, Lipps, J. H. 1999., In Scotchmoor, J., and Springer, D. A. (Eds.), Evolution: Investigating the Evidence. Paleonto-logical Society Special Publication, vol. 9, p. 3-16.7. The Scientific Method, M. J. Malchowski, Phd., http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~mmalacho/ScientificMethod.html, 19998. Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, T. C. Chamberland, Journal of Geology in 1897, http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/chamberlin.html, 9. What is Science, by Bruce H. Tiffney UC Santa Barbara, http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/tiffney3a.html10. State-of-the-Art Research is the Future of Fire Investigation, Daniel Madrzykowski, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Na-tional Institute of Standards and Technology11. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Science, 185, 1124-113012. WHAT WAS HE THINKING? BEYOND BIAS—TO DECISION MAKING AND JUDGING, Mike Johns, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Senior Litigation Counsel, Serious Accident Investigations course, BLM National Training Center, Phoenix, AZ., 200713. Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making, Brite Englich, Pers Soc Psychol Bull, February 1, 2006; 32(2): 188 - 200.

ROBERT GREEN is a Senior Investigator with the New Orleans office of Unified Investigations & Sci-ences, Inc. Mr. Green has over 20 years of experience in fire investigations, which include investigations in both the criminal and civil arenas. While servicing in the public sector Mr. Green was a detective with the Lowndes County Sheriff’s Office responsible for fire investigations. During his employment with Unified Investigations & Sciences, Inc., Mr. Green has been involved in the investigation of some of the largest fire incidents to occur in the United States, such as the McFrugal’s Distribution Center, the largest reported fire loss in 1996, the Motor Yacht Ulysses, the larg-est luxury yacht built in the United States since World War II, and the Aljoma Lumber Company facility in Ponce, Puerto Rico.

JAMES MAZERAT is the Territorial Manager of the New Orleans office of Unified Investigations & Sci-ences, Inc. Mr. Mazerat has been involved with the determination of the origin and causes of fires for over 35 years. During his career with the fire ser-vice he served as both a full-time employee and a volunteer. During his 30 years of activity in the fire service, he attained the rank of Chief of the fire dis-trict he served. While performing his activities as a volunteer he worked full time as an origin and cause investigator in the private industry. He has conduct-ed investigations internationally for private insur-ers and has served on the National Fire Protection Association’s Committee on Fire Investigations from 1986 to 1996 and was involved with the development of NFPA 921 during its first two cycles. He was called on by Lloyds of London to head the investigation into two of their largest cargo losses in the United States, McFrugal’s Distribution Center in New Orleans, Louisiana ($20,000,000), and Cardinal Distributors in Phoe-nix, Arizona ($456,000,000).

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

The Scientific MethodEven though this diagram shows the scientific method as a series of steps, keep in mind that new information or thinking might cause a scientist to back up and repeat steps at any point during the process. A process like the scientific method that involves such backing up and repeating is called an iterative process.

Ask Question

Do BackgroundResearch

ConstructHypothesis

Test with anExperiment

Analyze ResultsDraw Conclusion

Report Results

Think!Try Again

Hypothesis Is Falseor Partially TrueHypothesis Is True

Copyright © 2007 Kenneth Lafferty Hess Family Charitable Foundation. All rights reserved. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/You may print and distribute up to 200 copies of this document annually, at no charge, for personal and classroom educational use. When printing this document, you may NOT modify it in any way. For any other use, please contact Science Buddies. 2007/03/05

“Logic Path”

• What do I know about this claim?

• What information would help resolve

• What do I suspect? • What issue(s) am I

the issue(s) in question?Wh I ttrying to resolve? • Where can I get this information?

Seattle Insurance & Legal InvestigationsSeattle Insurance & Legal Investigations

CRIME SCENE ENTRY LOG SHEETALL PERSONS ENTERING THE CRIME SCENE MUST SIGN THIS SHEET

AGENCY: INCIDENT #:

SCENE LOCATION:

NOTE: Officers assigned to maintain scene security must also log in and out on this sheet and should state their reason as "Log Officer".

IN OUT

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

Copyright 2000, Imprimus Forensic Services, LLC - This form may be reproduced for law enforcement purposes only. Page ________ of ________

NAME & TITLE AGENCY CREDENTIALS DATE / TIME DATE / TIME REASON FOR ENTERING

FIRE INVESTIGATION UNIT

Case Solvability Factors

Fire Investigator:

Case Number: Date:

Address of Incident:

FACTORS YES NO

Were there witnesses to the arson ignition or events immediately before or after the crime?

Is there knowledge of a suspect’s name?

Is there knowledge of where a suspect can be located?

Is there a description of a suspect?

Is there identification of a suspect?

Is there stolen property with identifiable characteristics, marks, or numbers (so that it can be traced)?

Is there a significant modus operandi (MO)?

Is there significant physical evidence?

Is there a description which identifies the automobile used by the suspect?

Are there positive results from a crime scene evidence search?

Is there a belief that a crime may be solved with publicity and/or reasonable additional investigative effort (arson tip reward program, etc.)?

Was there an opportunity for another person to have committed the crime?

The presence of three or more factors (yes answers) indicates a good chance of solving this case with additional investigative effort. Otherwise the case should be closed, pending further information.

Approved by Fire Marshal:________________________________________________

Measurement Reference Table Describe Reference Point

Describe Reference Line

X-Axis Y-Axis Item # Description W/E N/S

Incident Information

Agency Incident #

Address:

Date Incident Type

Location Description:

Recorded By Date & Time Collected © 2001 Imprimus Forensic Services, LLC This form is available at: www.imprimus.net/downloadable_files.htm

BUILDING / NEIGHBORHOOD CANVASSAGENCY: INCIDENT #:

INSTRUCTIONS: Document whether or not all occupants of the residence were interviewed. Document locations where no persons were contacted If available, list pager and / or cellphone numbers in the remarks column. Use the back side of this sheet for notes.

MULTIPLE UNIT OCCUPANCY: Address ____________________________________________________________________ Number of Units _______________________ (List only unit numbers below)

ADDRESS (indicate residence, business, etc.) PERSON CONTACTED DOB HOME TX# WORK TX# REMARKS (pager / cell phone)# OF OCC. FOLLOW-UP RQ'D

NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC. FOLLOW-UP RQ'D

NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK


NOTES ON BACK

CANVASSING OFFICER (Print): _____________________________________________________ INITIALS: __________ DATE: ______________ TIME START: _____________ TIME END: ______________

Copyright 2000, Imprimus Forensic Services, LLC - This form may be reproduced for law enforcement purposes only.

VEHICLE INFORMATION CANVASSAGENCY: INCIDENT #:

INSTRUCTIONS: Document all vehicles in the area you have been assigned. Include vehicles parked in the streets, driveways, alleyways and yards. Under "Remarks" list anything unusual noted about the vehicle (manner of parking, warm engine, fresh damage, etc.)

For vehicles without license plates, enter the VIN under the "Remarks" column.

ADDRESS (indicate alley, driveway, street, etc.) MAKE MODEL COLOR PLATE REMARKS (V.I.N.)

CANVASSING OFFICER (Print): _____________________________________________________ INITIALS: __________ DATE: ______________ TIME START: _____________ TIME END: ______________

Copyright 2000, Imprimus Forensic Services, LLC - This form may be reproduced for law enforcement purposes only.

FIRE - POLICEOBSERVATION REPORT

AGENCY CASE NUMBER

INVESTIGATOR DATE

IDENTIFICATIONNAME FIRE POLICE□ □ SHIFT/STATION ASSIGNED UNIT/AGENCY

INCIDENT ADDRESS DATE INCIDENT/CASE #

DID YOU TAKE ANY PICTURES/VIDEO?

DID ANYONE ELSE ? (NAME, AGENCY, PHONE #)

WEATHER OBSERVATIONSVISIBILITY PRECIPITATION TEMPERATURE WIND DIRECTION WIND SPEED

LIGHTNING OTHER (ICE, SNOW, INVERSION, ETC)

APPROACHING THE SCENEDIRECTION OF APPROACH

OBSTRUCTION(S) TO RESPONSE

OBSTRUCTION(S) TO ACCESS

FIRE & FLAMEVISIBLE (EXTERIOR) COLOR & QUANITY LOCATION OF FIRE ORIGIN

□ YES □ NO

SMOKEVISIBLE (EXTERIOR) COLOR & QUANTITY LOCATION OF SMOKE ORIGIN

□ YES □ NO

PERSON(S) AND/OR VEHICLE(S) LEAVING THE SCENEPERSON # □ M F□

□ TALL MEDIUM SHORT□ □CLOTHING/DESCRIPTION DIRECTION OF TRAVEL/OTHER

PERSON # □ M F□ □ TALL MEDIUM SHORT□ □

CLOTHING/DESCRIPTION DIRECTION OF TRAVEL/OTHER

VEHICLE # COLOR(S) YEAR MAKE MODEL LICENSE NO, STATE COMMENT/DESCRIPTION/DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

VEHICLE # COLOR(S) YEAR MAKE MODEL LICENSE NO, STATE COMMENT/DESCRIPTION/DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

**LIST ANY ADDITIONAL PERSONS OR VEHICLES ON REVERSE**

ARRIVAL AT THE SCENENUMBER OF SPECTATORS DESCRIPTION OR IDENTIFICATION

UNUSUAL VEHICLE MOVEMENTS

□ YES □ NOFIRE DEPT UNITS ALREADY ON LOCATION POLICE OFFICERS ON LOCATION

CONNECTION PROBLEMS? HYDRANT FDC, SIAMESE, PIV OTHER

□ YES □ NOALARM SYSTEM SOUNDING? WATER GONG SMOKE DETECTOR OPERATIONAL? OTHER

□ YES □ NO

ENTERING THE BUILDINGWHERE DID YOU GAIN ENTRY? WAS FORCIBLE ENTRY NEEDED? (WHAT TOOLS DID YOU USE)

DOORS LOCATION

□ LOCKED □ UNLOCKEDWINDOWS LOCATION

□ CLOSED □ OPENEVIDENCE OF FORCED ENTRY PRIOR TO ENTERING THE BUILDING? - EXPLAIN

□ YES □ NOLOCATION OF DOORS AND WINDOWS ENTERED OR OPENED BY YOU FOR ACCESS OR VENTILATION (LOCKED, OPEN, BROKEN, ETC)

DID YOU NOTICE ANY DOORS OR WINDOWS BLOCKED OR COVERED?

***CONTINUED ON REVERSE***

**FIRE/POLICE OBSERVATION REPORT – BACK PAGE**ATTACKING THE FIREDIRECTION OF FIRE ATTACK HOSE SIZE AND NOZZLE TYPE USED

AREA FIRST EXTINGUISHED AREA LAST EXTINGUISHED

WAS FIRE UNUSUALLY DIFFICULT TO EXTINGUISH? EXPLAIN

WAS THERE ANY UNUSUAL REACTION OF THE FIRE TO THE WATER? - EXPLAIN

FACTORS INFLUENCING FIRE SPREAD (I.E. MULTIPLE FIRES)

DESCRIBE ANY UNUSUAL ODORS – WHERE WERE THE ODORS STRONGEST?

DESCRIBE ANY UNUSUAL FLAMMABLES OR COMBUSTIBLES YOU SUSPECT (AND THEIR LOCATION)

SALVAGE AND OVERHAULDID YOU MOVE ANY ITEM(S) FROM THE STRUCTURE? □ YES □ NO

WHAT WAS THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE ITEM(S) MOVED – ATTACH SKETCH IF APPROPRIATE.

DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL IN THE STRUCUTRE DURING YOUR SALVAGE AND OVERHAUL OPERATIONS?

DID YOU MOVE OR TOUCH ANY CIRCUIT BREAKERS? DESCRIBE AND IDENTIFY.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - SCENE SKETCH (NOTE ANY UNUSUAL OR NOTEWORTHY ITEMS, ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NEEDED)

**ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY**

City of Tukwila Fire Department TFD Case Number: __________________444 Andover Park East TPD Case Number: __________________Tukwila, WA 98188(206) 575-4407

NOTICE OF RELEASE OF PREMISES

RE: Premises located at: _________________________, ________________Washington 98______

Date: ___________________________________________ Time: _________________________

Notice is hereby given at the above date and time that the City of Tukwila Fire Department is removing all personnel from the premises indicated above. Possession and control of such premises is returned to the owner, occupant, or other such designated person responsible for such premises.

This notice is given so that the responsible person for the premises may take such action as necessary or desirable for the protection of the premises and/or contents therein.

SPECIAL INTSTRUCTIONS:

1. Maintain a fire watch once the fire department leaves the scene. Immediately call 911 if smoke or flame appears.

2. Do not enter the structure for any reason. Unsafe conditions exist throughout the interior and the exterior.

3. If you have questions concerning the incident or if you have additional information, contact our office.

4. Contact your insurance company as soon as possible and report the loss. If evidence is tagged, advise your insurance company. Do not tamper, alter, manipulate, remove, damage, test, or destroy these items.

I certify that the control of the premises, and/or contents therein, has been returned to me and that I am responsible for the protection of such premises and/or contents and evidence if present.

Signed: _____________________________ Printed Name: ________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________________

Phone: ( ) ____________________________ WDL # _________________________________

Property Released to the Above By:

__________________________________Fire Investigator

Existing Structure Fire/Crime Scene Standard Photography Requirements

Page 1 of 3

These suggestions can be applied, with certain modifications, to virtually any type of fire/crime scene, whether large or small, vehicle or structure. The term “structure” is used to denote the item involved. 1. Incident Identifier

a. Close-Up of a Photo Title Card with incident data for photo identification 2. Incident Location

a. Street Name, structure number, rural mailbox number, and name. Include structure and identifier in an overall photo

3. Exterior

a. Straight-on 90 degree shot of all four sides of structure b. 45-degree off-the-corner shots showing adjoining sides at each of four corners c. Close-ups of all doors, windows, and any other means of entry or egress d. Close-ups of both inside and outside of accesses having signs of forced access e. Macros (high quality close ups) of forced entry signs on both outside of forced access f. Documentation of condition of roof taken from elevated position. Four sides and/or corners if possible g. Burn patterns at doors, windows, and other openings h. Melt patterns of vinyl siding, window frames, doors, and soffits i. Suspicious tracks, containers, or other items unnatural to the scene j. Nearby livestock, pets, vehicles, and related housing k. Conditions indicating missing livestock, pets, vehicles, and related housing l. Scene from witness’s viewpoint

4. Exposures

a. Sides exposed to the fire and 45-degree corner shots at each end b. Interior of exposures if exteriors damaged

5. Spectators

a. Document on-lookers and vehicles, especially recognized suspects and persons who stand out because of their actions and/or inappropriate attire

6. Apparatus

b. Overall shots showing emergency vehicles, equipment, and manpower 7. Suppression

a. General views showing firefighting efforts including hand lines, snorkels (elevated platforms), laddering, rescue, overhaul, ventilation, medical, injuries, deaths

8. Fire Progression

a. Repeat steps 3a, b, f, g, and h and entire categories 4 – 7 periodically until fire is extinguished 9. Utilities (general)

a. Electrical: on or off, entrance, meters, fuses, circuit breakers, wiring, outlets, switches, evidence of tampering or repair, etc

b. Gas (city or propane): on or off, valves, piping connections, evidence of tampering or repair, etc c. Water (city or well): on or off, valves, meters, pumps, piping, connections, evidence of tampering or

repair, etc 10. Utilities (detailed)

a. All utility services located at or near the area of origin should receive detailed photographic documentation from point of origin to entry into the structure


Page 2 of 3

11. Interior a. All rooms, halls, stairways, closets, cabinets, storage areas, attics, and cellars b. Include walls, ceilings, and floors c. Furnishings and contents including location and arrangement

12. Extinguishment Systems (general)

a. All types: on or off, valves, meters, gauges, piping, pumps, pressure systems, connections, and evidence of tampering or repair

13. Extinguishment Systems (detailed)

a. All extinguishment systems located at or near the area of origin should receive additional detailed photographic documentation from point of origin to entry into the structure

14. Fire/heat flow indicators

a. Heat, smoke, burn, and char patterns throughout structure, from least affected area to area or point of origin

b. Include walls, ceilings, and floors c. Directional pointers to area of origin caused by softening or melting of light bulbs, glass, plastic, candles,

toys, etc. d. Rounding of edges of furnishings and structural members e. Tapering of structural members f. Point(s) of lowest burn g. Burn patterns h. Clocks

15. Heat sources (general)

a. Overall location and close-up f all heat sources throughout structure. Must confirm or eliminate all possible causes of fire

16. Fuel Sources

a. All flammable items and materials contributing to growth and extension of fire: gas lines, paint, thinners, furnishings, foam, propane/acetylene/oxygen tanks, etc

17. Area of Origin

a. Before, during, and after excavation and reconstruction of area of origin, such as a particular room or dimensional radii from suspected point of origin

b. Detail photos of burn patterns, char depth, damage, and destruction c. Location of heat sources in area d. All exterior sides of heat sources and general views of interiors e. Detail interior and exterior close-up/macro views of isolated damage areas of heat sources f. Nameplates and make, model, and serial number designations g. Installation, operation, and maintenance instruction plates

18. Point of Origin

a. Record excavation and reconstruction of point of origin b. Repeat steps 17b, 17c above c. Show proximity of heat source(s) to combustibles/flammables d. Repeat steps 17d-17g above

19. Evidence

a. Each item of evidence taken, one alone in situ (as found) and one with identifier and scale b. Each control sample for evidence item taken: one alone in situ and one with identifier and scale c. General overall area with identifiers marking locations of evidence taken d. Same overall of area in Step 19c but without evidence location identifier


Page 3 of 3

20. Scene Irregularities

a. Anything that is out of place or foreign to the area in which found b. Any artificial means used to increase the rate of fire spread as opposed to those conditions that would

normally be responsible c. All indicators of possible arson

21. Controlled Substances, hazardous materials, explosives, arms, and ammunition

a. Document item and location usually under direction of law enforcement in authority b. Container designation and make, model, and serial numbers

22. Fatality

a. Location of body(s) with respect to one another and surroundings immediately upon discovery b. Position and condition of unexcavated body c. Excavation of debris from and around body d. Position and condition of excavated body e. Obvious wounds and injuries f. Underside surface of body g. Surface body laid upon h. Weapons or personal items i. Recommendations of coroner

23. Autopsy

a. Conditions of body exterior including lividity, soot, skin, hair, and extremities b. Wounds and injuries c. Condition of respiratory organs affected by heat, smoke, toxic fumes, or flames d. Condition of respiratory organ not affected by heat, smoke, toxic fumes, or flames e. Condition of organs indicating cause of death f. Recommendations of medical examiner

24. Forensic

a. Usually taken by a lab technician under controlled conditions using special equipment rather than the fire/crime scene photographer

Source: Redsicker, David R The Practical Methodology of Forensic Photography, Second Ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press:2001

Follow the Story Basic Six Step Report Format

Introduction

• Set the Scene • Introduce the Players

Tell the Story (Summary)

• Start at the beginning of the incident • Chronological Order with lots of details

Tell How You Became Involved

• Did the victim call 911? • How did you become involved in this incident?

List the Steps of Your Investigation and Investigative Actions

• Explain what actions you (and others) took as you worked the call or investigation • In what order did you examine the scene (what did you find?) • Did you identify/collect any evidence

Statements of Victims, Witnesses, and Others

• Document what they told you • Use exact quotes for important statements

Give the Disposition of the Incident

• How did the story end? • What facts support your conclusion? • Is there more follow-up work to be done?

AGENCY

Investigator's AgencyCASE NUMBER

FM09-000XYZINVESTIGATOR

Investigator's NameDATE

March 10, 2009NARRATIVE REPORT Page 1 of 3

SUMMARY:A brief synopsis of the case (130 words or less). Summarize the entire case as of the date this

report was written.

Example: On 06/05/2005 at 2251 hrs, FD 1 responded to a residential structure fire located at 3000 Rockefeller Ave., in unincorporated Snohomish County. Upon arrival they located fire venting form the roof of a single story single family residence. Fire crews extinguished the fire and notified dispatch to contact a county fire investigator to respond to the scene for an investigation. At 2300 hrs, I was notified by SNOPAC that FD 1 was requesting me to respond for an investigation at the above location. I arrived on scene at 2330 hrs and conducted an investigation into the origin and cause of the fire. There were no injuries to civilians or firefighters. Damage from the fire was estimated at $250,000 (structure and contents). Case number AZ08-00245 was assigned to this incident.

PEOPLEIdentify all the people involved in the case – Name, Address, Phone Number, Date of Birth, and

how they are related to the case and/or each other.

V-1: Hamilton, Alexander 1603 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC 202/555-1212 DOB: 02.02.1995(how related to incident; injured? etc)

W-1: Hayes, Rutherford B. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC 202/555-1212 DOB: 01.01.1990(how related to incident....)

X-1: Burr, Aaron 501 Bench Drive, Granite Falls WA 98058 360/555-1212 DOB: 03.03.1994Was seen running from the location approximately five minutes before the fire was discovered...

BACKGROUND:What transpired before the incident you are investigating – in chronological order up until the

time you arrived to examine the scene. Include an appropriately detailed synopsis of fire or police activity at the scene prior to your arrival (reference their reports by case number).

On Monday evening, June 5, 2005 Alexander Hamilton and Rutherford Hayes were playing cards at Hamilton's house. At approximately 2230 hours, they heard a noise in the backyard....

At 2251 hours, Snohomish County Fire District #1 was dispatched to the location for a possible structure fire. Fire crews arrived to find Hamilton laying in the front yard with burn injuries. Hayes was attempting to provide first aid. Crews attended to Hamilton and Hayes and then proceeded to extinguish the fire. At 2300 I was notified that Battalion Chief Roger Young had requested a Deputy Fire Marshal be dispatched to the scene. I proceeded to the location, arriving at 2345 hours. I checked in with Young and received an incident briefing and then received permission to enter the scene and conduct my examination.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:Describe the property where the incident occurred. If a vehicle or other mobile property,

AGENCY





describe it first and then describe the location where the incident occurred. Use enough detail that would allow someone to write a search warrant from your description, or that there is no doubt in their mind where the incident occurred.

EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION:The exterior examination disclosed... describe features, damage patterns or other information

that you examined.... Refer to photographs and diagrams if necessary.

INTERIOR DESCRIPTION:The interior examination disclosed...

AREA/POINT OF ORIGIN:The are of origin was located... (identify and explain WHY this is the area of origin; list the

possible heat sources in this area. If they can be eliminated, describe how and why.The point of origin was located... (locate the point of origin in three dimensions and explain

WHY)

EVIDENCE:What evidence was collected or identified as being associated with the cause of the fire. What

did you do with the evidence? If any evidence was collected, attach the evidence log sheet.

PHOTOGRAPHS AND DIAGRAMS:What photographs were taken? How many? Where can the reader obtain a copy of these

photos? Include full size photos of key points of the investigation, to assist the reader in “seeing” what you saw, examined, and concluded. Example: 75 digital photographs were taken during this investigation and are contained on a 700 MB Photo CD which is attached to this report, checked into the property room as Evidence Item #1, etc

What diagrams were prepared as part of your investigation? Plot plan, floor layout, electrical panel diagram, etc. Attach these diagrams to the report.

INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY:Describe your investigative activities...

I arrived at 2130 hrs and made contact with the Incident Commander, Battalion Chief Roger Young who briefed told me...

Articulate your legal right to be on the property – open view, exigent circumstances , verbal permission (from whom?), written consent, criminal search warrant, etc.....

I then spoke to the occupant, John Doe, who stated that...I examined the scene from the exterior to the interior, from the area of least damage (exterior

southeast corner of the residence) to the area of most damage (the northwest corner of the living room).I entered the structure (identify your entry point)....

At the conclusion of your examination, what happened to the property? Who did you release it

AGENCY





to (and how?) What instructions did you give to the person?

INTERVIEWS AND STATEMENTS:Identify each person you spoke to (in order) and provide a brief summary of what they told you.

(There will be some duplication from what is written above). Note if they provided a written or recorded statement – include these statements (written or transcribed) in the case file.

CONCLUSION:What conclusion did you draw from your scene examination and investigation?

The inception of the fire occurred inside the residence, in the northwest corner of the living room, three feet from the north wall, two feet from the west wall, and 18 inches from the floor in the area of the entertainment center.

List any steps that you took to further or complete the investigation – referral for juvenile fire setter intervention, release scene to owner/occupant, notified insurance adjuster, etc...

What was the damage estimate from the fire (replacement value)?

Heat Source: UNDETERMINED, Handheld Flame, Heat from operating electrical equipment, etc

First Fuel Ignited: What was the first fuel ignited? Electrical insulation? Upholstery? Flammable vapors?

Ignition Factor: What brought event, or chain of events, brought the heat source and the fuel together to cause the fire or explosion?

Cause of the Fire: UNDETERMINED – ACCIDENTAL – INCENDIARY – NATURALIf appropriate, include a brief statement about your level of certainty

Disposition: OPEN/CLOSED – What is the status of the case?Follow-Up: What still needs to be done? No Further Action Required; Locate and

interview Aaron Burr; or...

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing statement is true and correct.

/s/Your NameYour Agency

Fire Investigation Reports John Comery

ATF

SUMMARY Complete this section LAST. Write a one paragraph summary (100 words or less) of your investigation. If the investigation is still open, add a second paragraph describing what still needs to be done (follow-up) to complete the investigation. NARRATIVE Participating Investigators: Identify each investigator who participated in the investigation. Identify by name, agency, address, and phone number Owner: Who is the property owner? Involved Parties: Identify other involved parties to this incident (occupants, witnesses, suspects, others) Name-DOB-Address-Phone Description of Premises: Occupancy: Describe the location where the fire or explosion occurred. If a structure, describe the building construction type and features, identify the occupancy type, etc. Include information about any fire detection or suppression equipment installed. If a vehicle, note the make/model/year, VIN, license plate, etc AND the location where the vehicle was found (open field, remote service access road, etc) Include sufficient detail that this description could be used to write a search warrant. Building Construction: Fire Protection Systems:

Fire Discovery: Who discovered the fire? How? Fire Suppression: Describe fire suppression efforts. Did the fire protection equipment function properly? When was the fire department notified? When did they arrive. Where did they make entrance? What was the first area of fire extinguished? What was the last area extinguished? Did anything unusual happen during the suppression efforts? Summarize any observation reports provided by fire/police personnel in this section. Weather: What were the weather conditions at the time of fire discovery? Anything significant in the previous 24 hours? If the there was a delay in examining the scene, what was the weather between the time of extinguishment and the examination? Legal Presence: Describe how you accessed the scene (i.e. verbal/written permission of the occupant or owner, search warrant, etc) Interviews: Identify each person interviewed (include Name, DOB, Address, Phone) and a brief description/summary of what they said. SCENE PROCESSING Evidence: Identify all items of evidence collected, where they were found, who collected them, and their current disposition Exposures: What items (structures, vehicles, etc) beyond the initially involved fire were damaged? Injuries / Deaths: Identify each person injured or killed. Name-Address-Phone number. Give a brief description of injuries Fire Scene Investigative Hazards:

What hazards existed on the scene during your examination and the steps taken to mitigate the dangers Estimated Value of loss: Laboratory Examination: What items were sent to be examined – and what test results were returned? Discussion: Conclusion: Origin: Cause: Classification: Attachments:

August 2012

Fire Investigator Reference List Publication/Author 1. NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigation 2. NFPA 1033, Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator, 3. Brady, Kirk's Fire Investigation, 7th Edition, 4. IFSTA, Essentials of Firefighting, 5th Edition, 5. NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook, 20th Edition, (2008) 6. IFSTA, Hazardous Materials for First Responders, 4th Edition, 7. IFSTA, Fire Inspection and Code Enforcement, 7th Edition, 8. Lee Books, Investigation of Motor Vehicle Fires, 4th Edition 9. Delmar, Principles of Fire Behavior, James G. Quintiere

problem solving in fire investigations handout 2

Documents