Problem Solving in Fire Investigations

Student Handout

ByJames L. Mazerat and Robert A. Green

AS OUR PROFESSION PROGRESSES towards more of a science-based profession, most investigators are embracing the methodology suggested in the scientic method as the process one can use in answering questions as to the origin and cause of a re 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 understanding 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 regarding the number of steps in the scientic 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 Hypothesis, 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 rst 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 specic way. It is for this reason, it is important for the investigator, not only have a good working knowledge about how to perform the task, but understand the reasoning 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 inuence on the nal hypothesis because of the testing. It is understood 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 re or explosion incident. For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable through experiment or a cognitive process1. Everyone knows the meaning of the word experiment, but how many understand the meaning of the word Cognitive? With ones use of the scientic 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 testing. The cognitive process is the manipulation of events, concepts, images, thoughts or other symbolic material in the mind. The cognitive 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 nely to the meat of the subject Problem Solving. The investigation of a re is nothing more than solving a specic problem through the identication of the reason for the incident. Now we take this process one-step further when it comes to the scientic 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 ndings. Any hypotheses, which one expresses as being a scientic hypothesis, 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 available data must also predict that certain events will occur if certain events take place within a specic 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 scientic 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 condence we can have in the hypothesis4,5. When a re investigator develops a single idea, model, or hypothesis to explain a set of observations, it must be understood that this method is fraught with many pitfalls that can lead to incorrect conclusions. First, a re 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 t 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 re 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 re 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 individuals hypothesis6.
JANUARY 2008FIRE & ARSON INVESTIGATOR

20 HTTP://WWW.FIREARSON.COM

It is very important for one to understand that in testing a hypothesis, 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 insufcient to disprove the hypothesis at the time of the testing7. Albert Einstein, because of his profession as an inventor, 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 satised he or she did everything possible to determine that none of the available data will disprove their hypothesis. In the testing process, an investigator 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 specic 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 available on the subject. Because each incident is so specic, there is little chance one book or a document will give the investigator all the information needed to develop and then conduct the testing of the hypothesis. As one nds disagreement in different test, it is also a misconception 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 re 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 different 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 simultaneous and continuous development and testing of a number of hypotheses. The method of multiple working hypotheses is when a re 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 reaching 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 investigator 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 efcient known method of advancing science through hypothesis and theories. Because it is accepted that one can never prove the hypothesis 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 ndings that t with other scientic knowledge on the subject can provide the investigator with a specic degree of condence in the conclusion. By elevating the degree of condence about a conclusion, a re investigator can make
JANUARY 2008FIRE & ARSON INVESTIGATOR

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 evaluating 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 reproduce 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 re 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 results of the testing conducted by Daniel Madrzykowski at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In the report, he indicates it was not possible to produce general pattern consensus while reproducing the same scenario. There were cases where the replicated experiments also produced some signicant 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 disproving the hypothesis, then a single test, if conrmed, 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 experiment under different conditions may disprove it. With this being possible, there always exists the possibility that even though one performs all the testing possible to conrm 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 scientic community that there is no absolute knowledge in science, there is only progress, which is optimistically a progression towards a more complete and accurate understanding of the event. From our past, we have seen many times that new observations will cause changes in current scientic 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, rst as theories and then as laws of science. However, even these are not absolute, In that a scientic 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 anothers hypothesis. During the normal evaluation process, individuals will nd themselves anchoring their
HTTP://WWW.FIREARSON.COM

21

ideas to a specic 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 anchoring 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 scientic 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 conrm what they believe to be true, even if the evidence may be awed. 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 t a perceived outcome, either by stiing other ideas or giving in to conformation bias, will not produce good scientic results. Instead, investigators must treat the investigation process by applying the same scientic 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 investigator must be careful to address all possible biases that could reect 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 specic hypothesis. In using logical inference to develop a conclusion, 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 ones conclusion, for it is far more damaging to all involved to be wrong in ones 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 rst time may disprove its accuracy. It is more important at the end to be correct.

REFERENCES 1. Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigation, Section 4.3.6, 2004 2. Formal Description of the Cognitive Process of Problem Solving, Vincent Chiew, Yingxu Wang, icci, pp. 74-83, Third IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI04), 2004 3. Hypothesis, J.L. Stanbough, 2007, http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Hypotheses.html 4. 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 2006 5. Creative Paleontology, Jere Lipps, University of California, Berkeley, November 15, 2000 6. This is Science, Lipps, J. H. 1999., In Scotchmoor, J., and Springer, D. A. (Eds.), Evolution: Investigating the Evidence. Paleontological Society Special Publication, vol. 9, p. 3-16. 7. The Scientic Method, M. J. Malchowski, Phd., http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~mmalacho/ScienticMethod.html, 1999 8. 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.html 10. State-of-the-Art Research is the Future of Fire Investigation, Daniel Madrzykowski, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology 11. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Science, 185, 1124-1130 12. WHAT WAS HE THINKING? BEYOND BIASTO DECISION MAKING AND JUDGING, Mike Johns, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Senior Litigation Counsel, Serious Accident Investigations course, BLM National Training Center, Phoenix, AZ., 2007 13. Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Inuence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts Judicial Decision Making, Brite Englich, Pers Soc Psychol Bull, February 1, 2006; 32(2): 188 - 200.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

ROBERT GREEN is a Senior Investigator with the New Orleans ofce of Unied Investigations & Sciences, Inc. Mr. Green has over 20 years of experience in re 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 Sheriffs Ofce responsible for re investigations. During his employment with Unied Investigations & Sciences, Inc., Mr. Green has been involved in the investigation of some of the largest re incidents to occur in the United States, such as the McFrugals Distribution Center, the largest reported re loss in 1996, the Motor Yacht Ulysses, the largest 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 ofce of Unied Investigations & Sciences, Inc. Mr. Mazerat has been involved with the determination of the origin and causes of res for over 35 years. During his career with the re service he served as both a full-time employee and a volunteer. During his 30 years of activity in the re service, he attained the rank of Chief of the re district 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 conducted investigations internationally for private insurers and has served on the National Fire Protection Associations Committee on Fire Investigations from 1986 to 1996 and was involved with the development of NFPA 921 during its rst 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, McFrugals Distribution Center in New Orleans, Louisiana ($20,000,000), and Cardinal Distributors in Phoenix, Arizona ($456,000,000).

22 HTTP://WWW.FIREARSON.COM

JANUARY 2008FIRE & ARSON INVESTIGATOR

The Scientific Method

Even 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 Background Research Construct Hypothesis Test with an Experiment Analyze Results Draw Conclusion Think! Try Again

Hypothesis Is True

Hypothesis Is False or Partially True

Report Results

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 do I suspect? What issue(s) am I trying to resolve? What information would help resolve the issue(s) in question? Where can I get t Wh this information?

Seattle Insurance & Legal Investigations

Scene Documentation

CRIME SCENE ENTRY LOG SHEET

ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE CRIME SCENE MUST SIGN THIS SHEET
AGENCY: 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 NAME & TITLE AGENCY CREDENTIALS DATE / TIME OUT DATE / TIME REASON FOR ENTERING INCIDENT #:

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

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Page ________ of ________

FIRE INVESTIGATION UNIT

Case Solvability Factors
Fire Investigator: Case Number: Address of Incident: FACTORS Were there witnesses to the arson ignition or events immediately before or after the crime? Is there knowledge of a suspects 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.

Date:

YES

NO

Approved by Fire Marshal:________________________________________________

Measurement Reference Table

Describe Reference Point Describe Reference Line

Item #

Description

X-Axis W/E

Y-Axis N/S

Agency Incident # Date Incident Type Recorded By

2001 Imprimus Forensic Services, LLC This form is available at: www.imprimus.net/downloadable_files.htm

Incident Information Address: Location Description: Date & Time Collected

BUILDING / NEIGHBORHOOD CANVASS

AGENCY: 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 ____________________________________________________________________ (List only unit numbers below)
ADDRESS (indicate residence, business, etc.)
# OF OCC.

Number of Units _______________________

PERSON CONTACTED

DOB

HOME TX#

WORK TX#
FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

REMARKS (pager / cell phone)

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D NOTES ON BACK

# OF OCC.

FOLLOW-UP RQ'D 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 CANVASS

AGENCY: 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 - POLICE OBSERVATION REPORT

IDENTIFICATION
NAME INCIDENT ADDRESS DID YOU TAKE ANY PICTURES/VIDEO?

AGENCY INVESTIGATOR

CASE NUMBER DATE

FIRE POLICE

SHIFT/STATION DATE

ASSIGNED UNIT/AGENCY INCIDENT/CASE #

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

WEATHER OBSERVATIONS
VISIBILITY LIGHTNING PRECIPITATION TEMPERATURE WIND DIRECTION WIND SPEED

OTHER (ICE, SNOW, INVERSION, ETC)

APPROACHING THE SCENE

DIRECTION OF APPROACH OBSTRUCTION(S) TO RESPONSE OBSTRUCTION(S) TO ACCESS FIRE & FLAME SMOKE VISIBLE (EXTERIOR)

YES NO YES NO

COLOR & QUANITY COLOR & QUANTITY

LOCATION OF FIRE ORIGIN LOCATION OF SMOKE ORIGIN

VISIBLE (EXTERIOR)

PERSON(S) AND/OR VEHICLE(S) LEAVING THE SCENE

PERSON # PERSON # VEHICLE # VEHICLE # M F TALL MEDIUM SHORT M F TALL MEDIUM SHORT COLOR(S) COLOR(S) YEAR YEAR CLOTHING/DESCRIPTION CLOTHING/DESCRIPTION MAKE MAKE MODEL MODEL LICENSE NO, LICENSE NO, DIRECTION OF TRAVEL/OTHER DIRECTION OF TRAVEL/OTHER STATE COMMENT/DESCRIPTION/DIRECTION OF TRAVEL STATE COMMENT/DESCRIPTION/DIRECTION OF TRAVEL **LIST ANY ADDITIONAL PERSONS OR VEHICLES ON REVERSE**

ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE

NUMBER OF SPECTATORS UNUSUAL VEHICLE MOVEMENTS DESCRIPTION OR IDENTIFICATION

YES NO YES NO

FIRE DEPT UNITS ALREADY ON LOCATION CONNECTION PROBLEMS? ALARM SYSTEM SOUNDING? HYDRANT WATER GONG

POLICE OFFICERS ON LOCATION FDC, SIAMESE, PIV SMOKE DETECTOR OPERATIONAL? OTHER OTHER

YES NO

ENTERING THE BUILDING

WHERE DID YOU GAIN ENTRY? DOORS WAS FORCIBLE ENTRY NEEDED? (WHAT TOOLS DID YOU USE) LOCATION LOCATION

LOCKED UNLOCKED
WINDOWS

CLOSED OPEN YES NO

EVIDENCE OF FORCED ENTRY PRIOR TO ENTERING THE BUILDING? - EXPLAIN LOCATION 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 FIRE
DIRECTION OF FIRE ATTACK AREA FIRST 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) HOSE SIZE AND NOZZLE TYPE USED AREA LAST EXTINGUISHED

SALVAGE AND OVERHAUL

DID 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 444 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 575-4407

TFD Case Number: __________________ TPD Case Number: __________________

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 re watch once the re department leaves the scene. Immediately call 911 if smoke or ame 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 ofce. 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

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 witnesss 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 1 of 3

Existing Structure Fire/Crime Scene Standard Photography Requirements

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 2 of 3

Existing Structure Fire/Crime Scene Standard Photography Requirements

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

Page 3 of 3

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

CASE NUMBER

Investigator's Agency
INVESTIGATOR DATE

FM09-000XYZ March 10, 2009

Page 1 of 3

Investigator's Name

NARRATIVE REPORT

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 re located at 3000 Rockefeller Ave., in unincorporated Snohomish County. Upon arrival they located re venting form the roof of a single story single family residence. Fire crews extinguished the re and notied dispatch to contact a county re investigator to respond to the scene for an investigation. At 2300 hrs, I was notied 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 re. There were no injuries to civilians or reghters. Damage from the re was estimated at $250,000 (structure and contents). Case number AZ08-00245 was assigned to this incident. PEOPLE Identify 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: 03.03.1994 Was seen running from the location approximately ve minutes before the re 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 re 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 re. Fire crews arrived to nd Hamilton laying in the front yard with burn injuries. Hayes was attempting to provide rst aid. Crews attended to Hamilton and Hayes and then proceeded to extinguish the re. At 2300 I was notied 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 brieng 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

CASE NUMBER

Investigator's Agency
INVESTIGATOR DATE

FM09-000XYZ March 10, 2009

Page 2 of 3

Investigator's Name

NARRATIVE REPORT

describe it rst 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 identied as being associated with the cause of the re. 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, oor 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

CASE NUMBER

Investigator's Agency
INVESTIGATOR DATE

FM09-000XYZ March 10, 2009

Page 3 of 3

Investigator's Name

NARRATIVE REPORT
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 le. CONCLUSION: What conclusion did you draw from your scene examination and investigation? The inception of the re 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 oor in the area of the entertainment center. List any steps that you took to further or complete the investigation referral for juvenile re setter intervention, release scene to owner/occupant, notied insurance adjuster, etc... What was the damage estimate from the re (replacement value)? Heat Source: UNDETERMINED, Handheld Flame, Heat from operating electrical equipment, etc First Fuel Ignited: What was the rst 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 re or explosion? Cause of the Fire: UNDETERMINED ACCIDENTAL INCENDIARY NATURAL If appropriate, include a brief statement about your level of certainty Disposition: Follow-Up: OPEN/CLOSED What is the status of the case? 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 Name Your 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:

Fire Investigator Reference List

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

August 2012