Fire Investigation Issues Discussion Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays

Fire Investigation Questions Name: Institution: Fire Investigation Questions 1. Critically explain the distinction (if any) between a smoke horizon and a heat horizon, and how the horizons would/could be evaluated. What could interfere with the horizon, and would that be a help or a hindrance to an investigation? In the process of fire investigation, investigators apply different scientifically proven approaches to determine the source or origin of a fire. In this case smoke and heat horizons are common approaches based on damage on the walls of a structure affected by fire. In this approach, the investigator identifies the damage on the wall as either heat or smoke deposition found throughout the walls of the structure at different heights (Lentini 2012). The investigator assesses the damage caused by the smoke or heat on the walls in determining the area where the fire originated. The concept of heat horizon is different from the smoke horizon in that heat marks start to form at the top of a room where the hot air from the fire rises to. As you move closer to the origin of the fire, heat marks on the wall have been found to decent towards the source of origin of the fire in a room (Lentini 2012). In addition, heat horizons/ marks on the wall have also been shown to differ across the four sides of a room with difference pointing to where much of the heat was exerted. However, the heat marks are characteristically uniform towards the floor, a phenomenon interpreted as levels of ventilation which are further believed to decline towards the origin of a fire. Similarly smoke horizons for during burning especially in confinements and as such can be useful in identifying the origin of a fire. The formation of the smoke horizons or smoke damages has been demonstrated as useful in locating the origin of a fire or at least the level of the structure where the fire started (Leihbacher 2016). However, this is limited to fires that occur in confinements where the levels of ventilation determine the smoke horizon. For example attic fires such as lightening fires open the ventilation by burning down the roof before the ceiling fails making difficult to use smoke horizons on walls to identify fire origin. However, such limitations can be evaded through assessment of smoke horizons formed on artifacts on the walls of the rooms formed before the ceiling of the rooms fails. Alternatively, in situations where fire penetrates walls and floors, artifact at the point of fire penetration enable investigators to identify the surface that was first exposed to the fire thus determining the direct of the origin of the fire. Nevertheless, under circumstances where the structure burns to the point of collapsing, both heat and smoke zones cannot be formed unless the fire started in the basement (Leihbacher 2016). In this case, fires presumed to have started upstairs cannot be investigated based on the heat and smoke horizons approach because such fire like attic fires do not allow the formation of a hot layer of gas which results into the heat or smoke damage on the walls. 2. What is a chain of evidence, and why is it important in a fire investigation? Chain evidence in a fire investigation refers to a sequence of events including identification, gathering, analysis, storage, preservation, transportation and presentation of the findings or evidence to interested authorities including property owners and court of law (Button 2012). The chain of evidence is not only important in identifying the individual or investigator involved in the investigation but also ensure that all the necessary or standard procedures were adhered to in order to guarantee credibility of the evidence as well as its admissibility in a court of law (Button 2012). The chain of evidence is usually detailed enough to show who, where, how and the when the evidence was collected as well as its custody before submission to the interested parties such as in a court of law. The chain of evidence is critical in ensuring that all the evidence is collected following standard procedures and secured in a manner that does not permit manipulation to favor either of the parties involved in fire incident. This is because every piece of evidence is critical in establishing the cause of the fire and possibly identifies the responsible party. It important to appreciate that investigators are expected to collect every piece of evidence or anything that could be considered of evidentiary value and secure it for the purpose of informing the interested parties including property owners, court of law and the public (Button 2012). The chain also entails appropriate measures take to safeguard and further evidence in the fire site and the procedures to be followed in the disposal of the collected evidence upon completion of the investigation process and presentation of the evidence to the relevant authorities. Therefore, the investigator or investigative authority is expected to present the evidence answering the questions emanating from a standard chain of evidence. Through a chain of evidence, evidence presented to a court of law or any other concerned authority or entity can be regarded as credible evidence. 3. How could it be possible that a room with two apparent sources of ignition, could possibly NOT be the work of an arsonist It is possible that a room with two apparent sources of ignition could not be the work of an arsonist. This is possible if the room may have ignitable or highly flammable materials separate from the point of ignition. Evidence has shown that two distinct areas of fire with no connecting fire point to a case of incendiary fire. Therefore, ruling out a case of arson in a room with two ignition points would require identification of ignitable material in the different parts of the room identified as ignition point and the presence or absence of conduction, radiation or convection between the two points (Gorbett, Meacham, Wood & Dembsey 2015). In this case, the presence of fire communication means between the two points of ignition would rule out the possibility of an arsonist igniting the fire from the identified points. This would require the investigator to carefully consider fire travel and drop down. The scenario of two points of ignition may occur where combustible materials such as lampshades ignite and drop, wall posters, paintings and curtains drop and burn on the floor creating V patterns that may be mistakenly identified as possible ignition points (Leihbacher 2016). In addition, in one room combustible fuels stored in upper areas located in the ceiling level may ignite, melt and drown down resulting in the creation of secondary fire patterns that may be presumed as possible ignition points. Drop down fires may create V patterns that closely resemble a separate area of origin hence the importance of ruling out fire travels and drop down behaviors before concluding the presence of two ignition points (Leihbacher 2016). This is important in allaying the assumption that two ignition points in a room is indeed the role of an arsonist. Therefore, two ignition points may not necessarily be an indication of an arsonist involvement, hence the need to perform further investigations to establish the exact cause upon ruling out of the motive. Critique of a Fire Investigation Case Study Arson Fire #2: Unexplained Accelerants The investigator in the residential fire in south Kentucky failed to provide full investigative details regarding the fire whose cause was unknown and damages exceeded policy limits. Although the fire led to the collapsing of the living room, dining room and one upstairs bedroom into the center of the basement making the investigation of the apparent origin of the fire difficult, it was important for the investigator to rule out possible multiple ignition points in the house (Gorbett, Meacham, Wood & Dembsey 2015). Evidence of both gasoline and kerosene in the bedroom and the explanation from the homeowner that gasoline was stored in the basement suggests that someone was involved in the ignition of the fire. Since the combustibles were found in different areas of the house, it was also important to assess the collapsed walls of the upstairs bedroom where kerosene was detected before concluding that the origin of the fire was the basement. Although the intensity of the damage was more the basement and this informed the determination of the basement as the sole origin of the fire, the fire may have had multiple origins whose evidence may have been obstructed by the collapsed walls (Lentini 2012). To conclusively determine the direction of the fire whether from bottom to the roof or upstairs to the basement, the investigator would have sought to identify the presence or absence of a hole where the fire penetrated to downwards or upwards (Lentini 2012). Some of the evidence required to establish that indeed the fire originated from the basement is the presence of rectangular holes on the floor with the joists directing the flow of hot gases. It was also important to demonstrate that the fire travelled from the basement to the other rooms in the house. The evidence for possible fire travel or lack of it is important in this fire case to establish that indeed the fire that consumed the entire house originated from a single point (the basement) and not from any other point (Lentini 2012). In this case, it would have been important to rule out incidental causes since the presence of gasoline and kerosene may have been considered accelerators thus implying that the fire may have been cause by other causes such as electrical faults (International Association of Arson Investigators 2014). Examination of the electrical circuit system in the house would have been important to rule out electric fault. The investigation of this fire lacks a clear chain of evidence aimed at providing every piece of evidence that may have been useful in determining not only the origin and cause but also informing the investigator and other interested parties whether an arsonist or an individual may have played a role in the fire incidence (De Haan & Icove 2014). Although eye witness or owners play an important role in identifying cause and origin of a fire, the investigator in this case largely relied on information provided by the owner and a few observations to make the conclusions made in this case. Since the damage exceeded policy limits, there was need for additional investigations to provide a detailed account of such a fire to the benefit of the insurer and the fire management agencies. Reference List Button, D 2012, Evidence collection, preservation, and chain of custody. Accessed 02/2/2017 < http://www.nelsonforensics.com/Downloads/Evidence_Storage.pdf> De Haan, J & Icove, D 2014, Kirk’s fire investigation. New York, NY: Pearson New International, Seventh Edition Gorbett, G., Meacham, B., Wood, C & Dembsey, N 2015, Use of damage in fire investigation: a review of fire patterns analysis, research and future directions. Fire Science Reviews, Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1-35. International Association of Arson Investigators. 2014. Fire Investigator. New York, NY: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Leihbacher, D 2016, The geometry of fire investigation: Interpreting fire patterns. Fire Engineering. Accessed 02/2/2017 http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume- 169/issue-1/features/the-geometry-of-fire-investigation-interpreting-fire-patterns.html Lentini, J 2012, Scientific protocols for fire investigation, Second Edition, London: CRC Press. Read More

Fire Investigation Issues Discussion - Assignment Example

Extract of sample "Fire Investigation Issues Discussion"