Techniques of Fire Investigation - Assignment Example

 Techniques of Fire Investigation 1. With reference to fire investigation text books 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? Smoke horizon and fire horizon differ in the sense that the horizon that is covered by smoke is usually impossible to see through due to the dense mass of fumes that result from burning material and the used up amount of oxygen. Fire horizon on the other end is a region where the fire is still burning and is usually oxygen rich which is still being used up by the fire and it will eventually turn to a smoke horizon (Dehaan, 2012). The above statement simply tends to explain that there cannot be a smoke horizon without a fire horizon. It’s also to be noted that very dense or huge smoke horizon arise due to incomplete combustion processes or even combustion of materials that once set ablaze produce a lot of smoke. A smoke horizon might prevent one from having a clear view of the sky or the clouds, this region is also very dull colored and times can be seen as very dark depending on the size of the fire or the amount of materials experiencing combustion. An arsonist will in most cases avoid the smoke horizon more than they would avoid the fire horizon (Icove, et al., 2013). One when exposed to the smoke horizon might find it quite hard to see through the fumes and they are chocking which simply explains why people trapped in fires die of the smoke as they are unable to breathe due to the absence of oxygen. These two horizons can be interfered with majorly by the triangle that surrounds a fire for it to come about. For instance a region that is very windy will mean the fire will easily spread especially if they are flammable. Wind will easily help in the spread of fire meaning it can increase the fire horizon. On the other hand, it can also increase the smoke horizon as smoke is very light thus increasing its region. Presence of flammable materials will also increase both these two horizons (Dehaan, 2012). Flammable materials will give out a lot of smoke once set on fire hence making the smoke horizon be huge. Fire horizon too will be bigger or rather increased in size by flammable materials since they easily burn hence making the fire bigger. In conclusion, larger fire horizon means that most of the materials will completely burn thus even the evidence will burn out thus the investigators will face a huge challenge in solving for the case of the fire being a work of an arsonist (Almirall & Furton, 2016). A larger smoke horizon too will mean low visibility and movement within the region will be hindered thus investigators will have a tough time carrying out their task as well. 2. What is a chain of evidence, and why is it important in a fire investigation? The chain of evidence can be described as an essential process that is very useful in fire investigation process. It entails the process of collection as well documenting plus the protection of the collected evidence or any information that can be useful in the process of fire investigation. It requires the presence of specialists and well trained personnel in the fire department who are responsible for carrying out these activities of evidence collection and documentation. The chain of evidence is very critical as it ensures that only authorized personnel have access to the evidence thus as a result avoid the evidence being tampered with. The chain of evidence proofs very critical as it helps to monitor the flow of evidence from person to person and it in turn helps to ensue those responsible for the incident are captured and sentenced or dealt accordingly if need be. In addition to this, the chain of evidence ensures that the integrity and the security of any form of evidence collected is maintained at all times as long as the investigations are going (Chandler, 2009). Furthermore there is easy monitoring of the collected evidence hence it will be very helpful to identify any specific party that might be involved in tampering with the collected evidence. It will also in the long run ensure proper record of flow of activities from the time the incident of the fire is reported until the moment when the investigation comes to an end. It furthermore ensures easier labeling of evidence upon collection meaning that upon collection it can easily help in the investigation of the fire cause. Lastly, the chain of evidence proofs very useful when it comes to explaining the validity and the credibility of the evidence especially in the situation when the case gets before a judge or a court in this case (Stauffer, et al., 2007). 3. How could it be possible that a room with two apparent areas of ignition (i.e. points of origin), could possibly NOT be the work of an arsonist? Fires that are known and even the arrested arsonists convicted have proven that instances of fires are quite dangerous and the arsonists causing these fires are usually under very intense pressure to carry out their activities. This means there is a very small window for them to carry out their intention meaning that the arsonists are usually under very high pressure on a very short time scale to cause the fire and run from the site. Thus creates the impression that the arsonists do not have the time to create many points of origin of the fire meaning that they will in most cases be satisfied with having one point of origin before trying to flee very quickly as they too are usually scared of being seen or better yet being caught by the fire. Fires considering the fact that they will tend to move towards the region that have high concentration of oxygen means that in most case they will grow towards windows and doors which again are the exit points of the arsonist (International Association of Arson Investigators, 2011). Hence, the arsonist upon realizing this will decide on having one point of origin of the fire that will be effective on causing the fire spread throughout the whole structure they intend to burn meaning that fire caused or rather fires found to have two points of origin might not be the works or arsonists as they might lack a point of exit upon starting the fire. Fires are also known to travel and spread at a very high speed and in most cases the condition of the heat and the smoke make it very hard for the arsonist to work efficiently in establishing more points of origin of fires. This will create the impression that arsonists as a result will tend to come up with one point thus ruling out the possibility of them having two points of origin. 4. The fire investigation text book “Scientific Protocols for Fire Investigation 2nd Edition” by John Lentini contains many case studies in which the author has given a second opinion about the origin and cause of fire. Pick any one of those cases and write a critique, giving emphasis to examples of errors and poor decision making by the original fire investigators. John Lentini in his book tries to identify some of the errors that he feels in his opinion are made by the investigators in finding the causes of the errors. Lentini feels that most of these errors are made due to the fact that during the mid-90 the investigators did not have the advantage of science on their side to help in the investigations. Lentini feels that it is unfair to put away arsonists that are found guilty and in which Lentini feels they are not responsible for the fires.In his book, he argues that the case on the Oakland Hills fire which the investigators believe was caused by an arsonist although Lentini in his book feels otherwise (Lentini, 2006). Although the investigators felt that all the relevant indicators pointed to incriminate the arsonist Lentini has a rather very different opinion. The argument by this writer is that this argument on incriminating arsonists by basing the facts on the uneven burn patterns to indicate it was intentional is wrong as well as basing on the fact of there was presence of fire accelerants. According to Lentini, more emphasis and especially in this case should be given to natural causes of fire which he believes and is determined to proof usually result to uneven fire patterns. Also the region of Oakland hills is quite common with wild fires as the once that had been vastly experienced in that region in the year 1991. It is as a result very unfair to claim this on that occurred in 1992 to be an arsonist case. Lentini also claims that the region around Oakland hills is petroleum laced that is the background and this is an indication of trouble that can cause quick fire spread especially when there is a point of origin (Lentini, 2006). To avoid all this unfair treatments and unfair trials, he feels that investigators that are involved in fire investigations should give very special emphasis to forensics that is being introduced in the currents scientific world of investigation. Forensics according to him are well and properly trained to look at all the facts while paying attention to the prevalent conditions of the area that has experienced a fire outbreak. For instance in this case, Lentini feels that the ground around this region was petroleum laced. This means that in the case of a fire outbreak be it natural or wild, its spread will be wide and very vast. Also any small fact can be misinterpreted to suit the investigators intended outcome which in this case was to incriminate one of the suspects who he feels was not guilty. The region is also very prone to wild fires with over fifty households having been burnt down due to these wild fires. This means that basing the judgment on assumption, chances are high that this fire too that investigators claimed was caused by an arsonist could have been wild. References Read More