MoUs between Police and Fire Service have been in existence for some years now but are they effective? There are still cases coming to court where a breakdown in communication between the two agencies has resulted in miss-trials and cases abandoned at the final hour. In one case to my knowledge a suspect's details were not passed on. That suspect committed a murder some months later. In another case samples had not been taken after a hydrocarbon canine had indicated and frequently the only report of investigation at court is a statement of likely cause or 'confirmation memo' from the Fire Service investigator. There is no investigation report or detailed statement from either agency.
All because the Police and Fire Service failed to communicate effectively.
MoUs outline very clearly the roles and responsibilities of all parties but who reads and fully understands the complexities of these documents and what may be missing from them? The communication breakdown occurs for many reasons: non-compatibility of shift systems, lack of experience, verbal messages not passed on, complacency and over-familiarisation.
Police Officers understandably perceive the fire service to be the experts and when told by a fire investigator that the cause of the fire was most likely deliberate the assumption is often made that the fire has been investigated. What they do not hear and are sometimes not told is that the fire has only been investigated up to that point.
Some Regional Fire Authorities have a closer working relationship but certainly not all. Some regions take a full role and effectively investigate crime scenes. This, I believe, is controversial and may be subject to challenge.
In any event I believe there needs to be a clear and written statement from the Fire Service investigator to the Detective in charge, for example:
"This fire has been assessed by the Fire Service to be most likely of deliberate origin. The Fire Service thus has no further jurisdiction. A full and comprehensive forensic investigation is now required to ascertain the actual cause of the fire and to obtain evidence with regard to any perpetrator. The Fire Service will assist if required. Please contact ..... "
Have other investigators had similar experiences? What are the solutions?
One thing is for certain. It must be resolved. Nationally.
Wednesday 29 December 2010
Tuesday 28 December 2010
Discussion topic - Investigation beyond level three
The CFOA steering group may touch on this subject and there still exists (just) a group discussing the subject in some detail but I would like to canvass our Group's views.
Let us call it 'Level 4' investigation for now. It clearly encompasses any event that effectively overwhelms the scope and capabilities of existing Level 3 investigations. Note that I did not say it overwhelms the abilities of investigators that work to level three. We all at some point are called upon to deal with incidents that are beyond our current experience but it is that very experience that is key to our effectiveness when stretched in this way.
But can 'Level 4' investigation ability be cost-effectively taught or pre-planned?
Is there a need? Is there the necessary finance?
In the past we have had to learn as we go. Many valuable lessons have been learned and applied at Atherstone for example but further lessons were learned there too.
I tend to feel that there is validity in having an established but necessarily broad procedure but training for such rare events would not be cost effective.
Seminars or travelling presentations of case studies is a good way to pass on lessons but how about a specialist team on standby call?
There is much to discuss and consider so shall we start? Share your views here. Let's get lively and straight-talking. Your pointers and opinions will be passed to the relevant discussion groups and I may precis them for the journal.
Let us call it 'Level 4' investigation for now. It clearly encompasses any event that effectively overwhelms the scope and capabilities of existing Level 3 investigations. Note that I did not say it overwhelms the abilities of investigators that work to level three. We all at some point are called upon to deal with incidents that are beyond our current experience but it is that very experience that is key to our effectiveness when stretched in this way.
But can 'Level 4' investigation ability be cost-effectively taught or pre-planned?
Is there a need? Is there the necessary finance?
In the past we have had to learn as we go. Many valuable lessons have been learned and applied at Atherstone for example but further lessons were learned there too.
I tend to feel that there is validity in having an established but necessarily broad procedure but training for such rare events would not be cost effective.
Seminars or travelling presentations of case studies is a good way to pass on lessons but how about a specialist team on standby call?
There is much to discuss and consider so shall we start? Share your views here. Let's get lively and straight-talking. Your pointers and opinions will be passed to the relevant discussion groups and I may precis them for the journal.
Tuesday 26 October 2010
Aerosol can explosions
Currently working on a court report relating to the size and duration of a fireball resulting from an exploding aerosol can. The can was in a bin in a changing room so was probably 'empty' or nearly empty. There would still have been some residual flammable product in the can. Most of the literature relates to larger LPG releases and work with full aerosols.
I'm interested in colleague's thoughts, so please get in touch
I will share what I can after the trial.
Mike
Sunday 17 October 2010
Chinese Lanterns
Dear All
I wonder if anybody has come across any fires where the supposed cause was the possibility of a Chinese lantern. This happened recently at a farm fire in my own service and was only identified as the possible cause due to an eagle-eyed witness.
More recently I was giving a Fire Safety talk to a group of farmers from the National Farmers Union and I was asked the question if the Fire Service supported calls from some insurance companies to have Chinese lanterns banned in the UK. I have to admit that I wasn't sure of the position of national bodies such as CFOA, but suggested that tighter controls and greater awareness of the risks were certainly required.
The difficulty, as I see it, for Fire Investigation Officers, is the possibility of a Chinese lantern is unlikely to feature highly on the list of possible causes and the release of such a lantern is most likely to be remote from where a fire started. I would be interested to know the likelihood of a Chinese lantern descending to the ground when it is still lit as my understanding is they would remain airborne until they have self-extinguished, however, that does not necessarily seem to be the case. Hopefully one for further discussion.
All the best
Alan
I wonder if anybody has come across any fires where the supposed cause was the possibility of a Chinese lantern. This happened recently at a farm fire in my own service and was only identified as the possible cause due to an eagle-eyed witness.
More recently I was giving a Fire Safety talk to a group of farmers from the National Farmers Union and I was asked the question if the Fire Service supported calls from some insurance companies to have Chinese lanterns banned in the UK. I have to admit that I wasn't sure of the position of national bodies such as CFOA, but suggested that tighter controls and greater awareness of the risks were certainly required.
The difficulty, as I see it, for Fire Investigation Officers, is the possibility of a Chinese lantern is unlikely to feature highly on the list of possible causes and the release of such a lantern is most likely to be remote from where a fire started. I would be interested to know the likelihood of a Chinese lantern descending to the ground when it is still lit as my understanding is they would remain airborne until they have self-extinguished, however, that does not necessarily seem to be the case. Hopefully one for further discussion.
All the best
Alan
Sunday 15 August 2010
Tealight candles
As many of you will be aware I have been taking a keen interest in tealights for many many years. Since my initial report in 1999 and subsequent studies I have endeavoured to monitor and drive the subject through publicity and shear doggedness. I believe I am at last in a position to be able to say that the work has been a success.
There are fewer incidents and deaths as a direct result of tealights burning abnormally and the recalls that have arisen are often as a result of the greater awareness of the tealight issue. There are also electric tealights now available!
The basic product, however, is the same and the DTI failed to initiate any effective safety strategy via retailers so how was the campaign a success?
CONTROLLED, DRIVEN AND TARGETED PUBLICITY:
- Fire services and trading standards accross the UK were well informed and included the issue in their own safety initiatives.
- The media were used to increase public awareness.
- TV makeover programmes and lifestyle magazines were mailed directly when tealights were portrayed dangerously.
- The advertising standards authority were informed and issued conditions for portrayal of tealights.
- Coroners were informed.
- Fire investigators were informed.
I am now in a position, I hope, to let the subject go. It will often be impossible to improve fire safety by design or regulation. When that is the case then shear dogged determination is the only option. I always carry the doctrine in my head "If I do nothing with the knowledge I have and somebody dies. What would any Coroner ask of me?".
There are fewer incidents and deaths as a direct result of tealights burning abnormally and the recalls that have arisen are often as a result of the greater awareness of the tealight issue. There are also electric tealights now available!
The basic product, however, is the same and the DTI failed to initiate any effective safety strategy via retailers so how was the campaign a success?
CONTROLLED, DRIVEN AND TARGETED PUBLICITY:
- Fire services and trading standards accross the UK were well informed and included the issue in their own safety initiatives.
- The media were used to increase public awareness.
- TV makeover programmes and lifestyle magazines were mailed directly when tealights were portrayed dangerously.
- The advertising standards authority were informed and issued conditions for portrayal of tealights.
- Coroners were informed.
- Fire investigators were informed.
I am now in a position, I hope, to let the subject go. It will often be impossible to improve fire safety by design or regulation. When that is the case then shear dogged determination is the only option. I always carry the doctrine in my head "If I do nothing with the knowledge I have and somebody dies. What would any Coroner ask of me?".
IFE Forum and FI Blog
I have just had a quick look at the IFE forum and it is looking very sad indeed. Few entries at all this year and hardly any post seems to get any reply. Our own SIG has also been quiet. It's not a problem. We are all volunteers and have other matters to attend to but I would like to invite all to consider what pro-active measures we could take to reach a wider audience within IFE.
I would like to start with a monthly series of debate and advice on this blog site. The chosen subject will be posted onto the IFE forum and participants invited to this blog to enter the debate. Perhaps salient points can be summarised in our Newsletter. Please offer any subject or topic that you would like to see some discussion of and I will post it (please include a paragraph or information that will act as a springboard for the debate). If there is sufficient interest and activity I will publish the feature more widely.
My suggestions:
FI publications
Practical FI photography
Hand tools
On-site testing
Inter-agency working - Practicalities
I would like to start with a monthly series of debate and advice on this blog site. The chosen subject will be posted onto the IFE forum and participants invited to this blog to enter the debate. Perhaps salient points can be summarised in our Newsletter. Please offer any subject or topic that you would like to see some discussion of and I will post it (please include a paragraph or information that will act as a springboard for the debate). If there is sufficient interest and activity I will publish the feature more widely.
My suggestions:
FI publications
Practical FI photography
Hand tools
On-site testing
Inter-agency working - Practicalities
Wednesday 28 July 2010
Destroying the evidence...
The court case I sat through earlier this month is now reaching a conclusion. It has been extremely interesting as it involves a double killing and the victims’ bodies were destroyed in a very efficient manner in what is perhaps best described as a ‘homemade’ crematorium. The Bundeskriminalamt’s Forensic Experts have been involved by the defence team as the court had been advised that it was not possible to destroy a body, let alone two, in the manner described. However, the BKA team has shown that it is possible since the key element is not, as the original expert asserted, the temperatures generated or the method, but the combination of temperature and duration.
The court had a further difficulty in that the original investigation did not attempt to reconstruct the cremation equipment which the accused had, by that time, destroyed. Nor did they examine fully the information provided. Some ‘semantics’ were also involved which further clouded the issue, the accused stating that “the bodies were totally destroyed.” The use of the word “totally” was seized upon by the original expert as being “impossible”, but it is now accepted that this interpretation is far too narrow, since, to a layman, “totally destroyed” means being unable to recognise anything in the debris that he/she could identify as human.
So, how was this done?
The accused provided a detailed description of what he had done and how. When this methodology was examined fully and the implications studied and heat fluxes calculated it was found that the accused could well have destroyed the bodies sufficiently for the remains to be unrecognisable. His first step was to create a furnace.
To do this he cut the top off a small LPG ‘Bullet’ tank. This normally stands about 1.7 meters in height and has a diameter of 1.5 meters with a length of around 4 metres. Cutting the top off the tank reduced the height to 1.4 metres, allowing the fire bed to be fed from above. Slots approximately 100mm in length and 40mm in width were cut around the lower part of the tank, roughly 3-400 mm from the bottom. A fire was made inside the tank using wooden pallets and sustained until there was a deep bed of coals. More timber was then added to this and the first body, now wrapped in a poly-butylene “Butyl Rubber” pool lining sheet and placed inside a purpose made wooden ‘coffin’ was suspended over the top opening in the tank (This was 1 metre in width and the ‘coffin 900mm) and the fire using a mobile hoist. The Polypropylene strops melted and allowed the box to drop into the tank where the butyl sheet liquefied and promoted the rapid burning of the box.
Once the first box had begun to burn the second box was placed on top of it and caused the first to collapse, lowering the second completely into the tank.
Over the next eighteen hours the accused continued to stoke the fire, feeding in broken pallets from the top. This was one of the ‘issues’ the court had with the testimony since they believed the top would be too high for the accused to do this or to see into the tank unless he stood above the tank on an adjoining wall. However, this is where the original investigation was misleading. No one had drawn a scale drawing from the accused’s and other witnesses accounts. Once the BKA drawing was presented, complete with a to scale human figure, it immediately became obvious that not only was it possible to feed the fire as described, but to see into the tank without undue exposure to the heat or flames.
For me this underscored the need for investigators to make accurate scale drawings of anything they may need to look at in more detail or to verify witness descriptions. It certainly rocked the court’s perception and changed the opinion of the bench and assessors completely.
The calculations produced for the heat generated and output of a fire in these conditions were extremely complex, but showed that the burning pallet material would have produced sufficient heat to reduce a body and almost all the major bones to ash. When combined with the Butyl Rubber sheeting and the body’s own fatty tissues, the heat generated over the period of time given (18 hours) would have reduced the remains to fragments unrecognisable by any lay person. The BKA expert advised the court, and was supported in this by the Pathologist, that any larger pieces remaining would be sufficiently friable to be reduced to powder very simply either by handling or by the application of an acetylene torch on the premises. The accused’s reaction to this was sufficient to confirm suspicions that this is indeed what happened and he confirmed that verbally to the open court!
The calculations for radiant heat from the tank also confirmed that anyone ‘feeding the fire’ would be able to do so with only slight heat discomfort at a distance no more than 500 mm from the tank wall.
One of the many things that has caused a problem with this case is the fact that, though the accused showed the police where he had scattered the remains in a field, no attempt was made at the time to collect any samples from it or from the area where the tank had stood. Had this been done, the BKS team could have analysed it using X-Ray diffraction, a technique that reveals the crystalline structures off a variety of chemicals and would have shown up the Calcium Phosphates unique to human bones…
Sitting in on this case has been a fascinating learning experience, not least for the scientific analysis of the process, but for the identification of the many deficiencies in the original investigation. The court is to sit again on the 1st of August to hear a statement by a co-accused and the judgement will follow, I suspect, within days of that. It certainly bears out, for me, the vital necessity for fire investigators to understand the recording, recreation and evidence examination techniques as well as the fire!
Hopefully, at some point I will be able to post the drawings and some of the calculations on this site – but for the moment this is verboten!
The court had a further difficulty in that the original investigation did not attempt to reconstruct the cremation equipment which the accused had, by that time, destroyed. Nor did they examine fully the information provided. Some ‘semantics’ were also involved which further clouded the issue, the accused stating that “the bodies were totally destroyed.” The use of the word “totally” was seized upon by the original expert as being “impossible”, but it is now accepted that this interpretation is far too narrow, since, to a layman, “totally destroyed” means being unable to recognise anything in the debris that he/she could identify as human.
So, how was this done?
The accused provided a detailed description of what he had done and how. When this methodology was examined fully and the implications studied and heat fluxes calculated it was found that the accused could well have destroyed the bodies sufficiently for the remains to be unrecognisable. His first step was to create a furnace.
To do this he cut the top off a small LPG ‘Bullet’ tank. This normally stands about 1.7 meters in height and has a diameter of 1.5 meters with a length of around 4 metres. Cutting the top off the tank reduced the height to 1.4 metres, allowing the fire bed to be fed from above. Slots approximately 100mm in length and 40mm in width were cut around the lower part of the tank, roughly 3-400 mm from the bottom. A fire was made inside the tank using wooden pallets and sustained until there was a deep bed of coals. More timber was then added to this and the first body, now wrapped in a poly-butylene “Butyl Rubber” pool lining sheet and placed inside a purpose made wooden ‘coffin’ was suspended over the top opening in the tank (This was 1 metre in width and the ‘coffin 900mm) and the fire using a mobile hoist. The Polypropylene strops melted and allowed the box to drop into the tank where the butyl sheet liquefied and promoted the rapid burning of the box.
Once the first box had begun to burn the second box was placed on top of it and caused the first to collapse, lowering the second completely into the tank.
Over the next eighteen hours the accused continued to stoke the fire, feeding in broken pallets from the top. This was one of the ‘issues’ the court had with the testimony since they believed the top would be too high for the accused to do this or to see into the tank unless he stood above the tank on an adjoining wall. However, this is where the original investigation was misleading. No one had drawn a scale drawing from the accused’s and other witnesses accounts. Once the BKA drawing was presented, complete with a to scale human figure, it immediately became obvious that not only was it possible to feed the fire as described, but to see into the tank without undue exposure to the heat or flames.
For me this underscored the need for investigators to make accurate scale drawings of anything they may need to look at in more detail or to verify witness descriptions. It certainly rocked the court’s perception and changed the opinion of the bench and assessors completely.
The calculations produced for the heat generated and output of a fire in these conditions were extremely complex, but showed that the burning pallet material would have produced sufficient heat to reduce a body and almost all the major bones to ash. When combined with the Butyl Rubber sheeting and the body’s own fatty tissues, the heat generated over the period of time given (18 hours) would have reduced the remains to fragments unrecognisable by any lay person. The BKA expert advised the court, and was supported in this by the Pathologist, that any larger pieces remaining would be sufficiently friable to be reduced to powder very simply either by handling or by the application of an acetylene torch on the premises. The accused’s reaction to this was sufficient to confirm suspicions that this is indeed what happened and he confirmed that verbally to the open court!
The calculations for radiant heat from the tank also confirmed that anyone ‘feeding the fire’ would be able to do so with only slight heat discomfort at a distance no more than 500 mm from the tank wall.
One of the many things that has caused a problem with this case is the fact that, though the accused showed the police where he had scattered the remains in a field, no attempt was made at the time to collect any samples from it or from the area where the tank had stood. Had this been done, the BKS team could have analysed it using X-Ray diffraction, a technique that reveals the crystalline structures off a variety of chemicals and would have shown up the Calcium Phosphates unique to human bones…
Sitting in on this case has been a fascinating learning experience, not least for the scientific analysis of the process, but for the identification of the many deficiencies in the original investigation. The court is to sit again on the 1st of August to hear a statement by a co-accused and the judgement will follow, I suspect, within days of that. It certainly bears out, for me, the vital necessity for fire investigators to understand the recording, recreation and evidence examination techniques as well as the fire!
Hopefully, at some point I will be able to post the drawings and some of the calculations on this site – but for the moment this is verboten!
Friday 2 July 2010
Court procedure; German style
I thought readers might be interested in a brief review of the court case I attended last week. I hasten to add, as a spectator, not in any "official" capacity.
The case is an interesting one for a number of reasons. The accused is charged with two counts of manslaughter and disposed of the bodies by burning them in a very interesting manner. This is the reason I attended the trial and I will give more details when I am able to do so.
The German Courts have no Jury, the bench has five members, with a Presiding Judge, two Assessors and two lay members drawn from the electoral rolls by ballot in much the same manner as the UK's Jury Selection process. One difference, however, is the fact that potential lay members are screened to ensure they are qualified to understand the complexities of the case. Seated on either side of the court, with the defence at a level lower than the bench, are the Prosecutor on the Right of the Bench and the Defence facing him on the left. A major difference with a UK Court is the presence on the Prosecution's side of a Legal Rep and the victim's family representative, with another Legal Rep on the Defence side representing the accused's family! Cross-examination is generally led, as in the UK system, by the Prosecution, followed by the Defence, but then the other two parties are also allowed to examine the witness as are the three judges.
On the day I was present the evidence was being given by a Pathologist and a representative of the Bundeskriminalamt's Forensic Science Institute's Fire Investigation Unit and the questions all revolved around the method of destroying a body by fire. Watching the cross examination and listening to the technical answers proved very interesting indeed. Video of some experiments was shown, powerpoint was used, copies of technical papers circulated and examined and the court even adjourned to read a rather longer and more complicated one submitted by the FIO.
In the end the court adjourned, but issued a recall for the experts for later this month to answer specific questions raised in the evidence and which will require further research and calculation.
One thing was clearly evident throughout, bias is very difficult to sustain in this environment since, with four legal teams present and the bench any attempt at bias is quickly revealed. Unlike the "Adversarial" approach in the UK which does teend to sway a jury, there is a much calmer and more inquisitorial approach in this system. That said, don't try to evade a question or deliver a half answer. The Judges are very quick to demand a proper response and to dismiss anything which is inappropriate.
So how do the "Lay" members of the bench function?
They are also permitted to ask for explanations, though they usually do so through one of the Judges. Their main function is to listen, to watch and to assist the Judge in reaching a conclusion - and obviously, to ensure that conclusion has been reached in a balanced and even handed manner.
Of all the courts I have attended, this one struck me as being very fair in its deliberations (Interestingly the BKA witness and the Pathologist were called by the Defence Team.) and to contain some checks and balances not always present in a jury system. Giving evidence in this style of court may be slightly more 'relaxed' but is still no place for ill-informed or unscientific witnesses, the least suspicion of unqualified or unquantifiable answers or of unsubstantiated evidence is likely to bring down the wrath of the bench on the witness and get the evidence challenged and dismissed.
If you're lucky, you'll escape with a caution not to waste the courts time...
Having watched this court at work, I seriously recommend to everyone that time spent in the public gallery of a range of different courts and legal systems will be time very well spent indeed.
The case is an interesting one for a number of reasons. The accused is charged with two counts of manslaughter and disposed of the bodies by burning them in a very interesting manner. This is the reason I attended the trial and I will give more details when I am able to do so.
The German Courts have no Jury, the bench has five members, with a Presiding Judge, two Assessors and two lay members drawn from the electoral rolls by ballot in much the same manner as the UK's Jury Selection process. One difference, however, is the fact that potential lay members are screened to ensure they are qualified to understand the complexities of the case. Seated on either side of the court, with the defence at a level lower than the bench, are the Prosecutor on the Right of the Bench and the Defence facing him on the left. A major difference with a UK Court is the presence on the Prosecution's side of a Legal Rep and the victim's family representative, with another Legal Rep on the Defence side representing the accused's family! Cross-examination is generally led, as in the UK system, by the Prosecution, followed by the Defence, but then the other two parties are also allowed to examine the witness as are the three judges.
On the day I was present the evidence was being given by a Pathologist and a representative of the Bundeskriminalamt's Forensic Science Institute's Fire Investigation Unit and the questions all revolved around the method of destroying a body by fire. Watching the cross examination and listening to the technical answers proved very interesting indeed. Video of some experiments was shown, powerpoint was used, copies of technical papers circulated and examined and the court even adjourned to read a rather longer and more complicated one submitted by the FIO.
In the end the court adjourned, but issued a recall for the experts for later this month to answer specific questions raised in the evidence and which will require further research and calculation.
One thing was clearly evident throughout, bias is very difficult to sustain in this environment since, with four legal teams present and the bench any attempt at bias is quickly revealed. Unlike the "Adversarial" approach in the UK which does teend to sway a jury, there is a much calmer and more inquisitorial approach in this system. That said, don't try to evade a question or deliver a half answer. The Judges are very quick to demand a proper response and to dismiss anything which is inappropriate.
So how do the "Lay" members of the bench function?
They are also permitted to ask for explanations, though they usually do so through one of the Judges. Their main function is to listen, to watch and to assist the Judge in reaching a conclusion - and obviously, to ensure that conclusion has been reached in a balanced and even handed manner.
Of all the courts I have attended, this one struck me as being very fair in its deliberations (Interestingly the BKA witness and the Pathologist were called by the Defence Team.) and to contain some checks and balances not always present in a jury system. Giving evidence in this style of court may be slightly more 'relaxed' but is still no place for ill-informed or unscientific witnesses, the least suspicion of unqualified or unquantifiable answers or of unsubstantiated evidence is likely to bring down the wrath of the bench on the witness and get the evidence challenged and dismissed.
If you're lucky, you'll escape with a caution not to waste the courts time...
Having watched this court at work, I seriously recommend to everyone that time spent in the public gallery of a range of different courts and legal systems will be time very well spent indeed.
Sunday 20 June 2010
Investigation of major fires
Please see link in new page opposite. Any suggestions or contributions to this new group will be very welcome and will be passed on.
The background is that major fire investigation is well removed from level 2 and 3 and that we appear to be learning on our feet as and when major incidents occur. The group will seek to find common ground or procedure that any Police or Fire Authority can use as a template.
The background is that major fire investigation is well removed from level 2 and 3 and that we appear to be learning on our feet as and when major incidents occur. The group will seek to find common ground or procedure that any Police or Fire Authority can use as a template.
Saturday 22 May 2010
FI workshop 20th May - feedback
Link: www.cfoa.org.uk/download/16477
I found this workshop very interesting. It will clearly generate much of the schedule of the forthcomming FI Stategy Group:
- The South East Regional FI set up appears to me to be a very good role model. It is an excellent example of what can be achieved by determined effort from experienced practitioners and supportive, modern management. David Wales will fill you all in with more detail in the newsletter perhaps.
- Hampshire FRS presented an excellent Police/Fire Service investigation scheme that turns much current working practise and training on its head. Hampshire FRS investigators now fully work fire-related crime scenes! There may be some legal issues and there must surely be some training issues.
- Durham and Darlington FRS offer a FI degree that appears sufficiently comprehensive and good value for money. At present it is only available to FRS investigators.
Our profession is marching on rapidly but it is fragmented. I hope that the FI Strategy Group can achieve greater National cohesion, standards and comunication.
I found this workshop very interesting. It will clearly generate much of the schedule of the forthcomming FI Stategy Group:
- The South East Regional FI set up appears to me to be a very good role model. It is an excellent example of what can be achieved by determined effort from experienced practitioners and supportive, modern management. David Wales will fill you all in with more detail in the newsletter perhaps.
- Hampshire FRS presented an excellent Police/Fire Service investigation scheme that turns much current working practise and training on its head. Hampshire FRS investigators now fully work fire-related crime scenes! There may be some legal issues and there must surely be some training issues.
- Durham and Darlington FRS offer a FI degree that appears sufficiently comprehensive and good value for money. At present it is only available to FRS investigators.
Our profession is marching on rapidly but it is fragmented. I hope that the FI Strategy Group can achieve greater National cohesion, standards and comunication.
Forensic Science Degrees
Reading the latest issue of 'Science and Justice' (journal of the Forensic Science Society (FSS)), I was pleased to see that the FSS have been studying the issue of these degrees and their use to employers. It is no surprise that employers have found little use at all for applicants with these degrees. They have been discredited in the National press as "The current Media Studies degree".
The FSS appears to have chosen to support the continuation of these courses despite the fact there is no career path. They state that they will "work closely with employers and universities to develop a common benchmark for the content of these degrees aligning graduate skills with employer need". For the students sake I sure hope so.
I believe these courses have been niaively and sometimes cynically set up on the back of the so-called CSI effect and that they should not be offered to anyone who does not have a science degree or substantial relevant work experience.
Any opinions?
The FSS appears to have chosen to support the continuation of these courses despite the fact there is no career path. They state that they will "work closely with employers and universities to develop a common benchmark for the content of these degrees aligning graduate skills with employer need". For the students sake I sure hope so.
I believe these courses have been niaively and sometimes cynically set up on the back of the so-called CSI effect and that they should not be offered to anyone who does not have a science degree or substantial relevant work experience.
Any opinions?
Sunday 9 May 2010
Skype
We had a brief call between three of us this morning (Sunday 9th).
There are problems with the system that may render it unusable for anything other than a casual conversation between just one or two people.
Chris was using a laptop and dongle. His signal strength was poor and we were unable to hear him fully. He was, however, able to write messages without any problem.
Mike and I were using laptops but with our home PCs nearby. I am sure that many of us multi-task like this. The Skype programme on the PCs often responded automatically and we found that we had to shut down the PCs.
I also found that my internet connection dropped out completely sometimes when both my machines were operating with Skype.
Paul could you see if there is any cure for these issues and also explore if Yahoo conference calling may be a better option. Thanks.
There are problems with the system that may render it unusable for anything other than a casual conversation between just one or two people.
Chris was using a laptop and dongle. His signal strength was poor and we were unable to hear him fully. He was, however, able to write messages without any problem.
Mike and I were using laptops but with our home PCs nearby. I am sure that many of us multi-task like this. The Skype programme on the PCs often responded automatically and we found that we had to shut down the PCs.
I also found that my internet connection dropped out completely sometimes when both my machines were operating with Skype.
Paul could you see if there is any cure for these issues and also explore if Yahoo conference calling may be a better option. Thanks.
Saturday 1 May 2010
New members to the panel
We have two new panel members now with us:
Mike Burroughs is Station Manager with the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service Fire Investigation Support Team. He is also a Fire Safety Policy Support Officer.
Mark Ross is a Watch Manager with the London Fire Investigation Team.
So we now have FRS representation in the South West and London.
IFE's new Technical Officer, Jim Robson is also signed onto our blog for IFE administration purposes.
Mike Burroughs is Station Manager with the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service Fire Investigation Support Team. He is also a Fire Safety Policy Support Officer.
Mark Ross is a Watch Manager with the London Fire Investigation Team.
So we now have FRS representation in the South West and London.
IFE's new Technical Officer, Jim Robson is also signed onto our blog for IFE administration purposes.
Wednesday 21 April 2010
FI Workshop
CFOA will be hosting a free one day fire investigation workshop at the Fire Service College on may 20th. Unfortunately it has not been posted on the CFOA website so there is no link available for you.
The purpose of the workshop is to discuss FI strategy and to inform the FI Reports Advisory Group.
David Wales and myself are each presenting and assisting in the workshop sessions. I hope some of you may be able to attend. In any event, we will report back via this blog.
The purpose of the workshop is to discuss FI strategy and to inform the FI Reports Advisory Group.
David Wales and myself are each presenting and assisting in the workshop sessions. I hope some of you may be able to attend. In any event, we will report back via this blog.
Wednesday 17 March 2010
IFE publications update
I have spoken to the IFE's newly appointed Technical Officer, Jim Robson.
He is keen to review all of the red book series. We will be discussing the issue in detail in due course. I have been putting some ideas together and am currently re-reading all the main existing books (Does anybody else find Mr Lentini's opening introduction somewhat annoying?).
So, any further ideas and suggestions are very welcome.
I will email all soon to suggest another joint Skype call this Sunday.
He is keen to review all of the red book series. We will be discussing the issue in detail in due course. I have been putting some ideas together and am currently re-reading all the main existing books (Does anybody else find Mr Lentini's opening introduction somewhat annoying?).
So, any further ideas and suggestions are very welcome.
I will email all soon to suggest another joint Skype call this Sunday.
Friday 26 February 2010
Sleeving big style....
Came across some wiring at the Training School in Tehran which made me sit up and do some quick checks. The wire in the photo had been removed and replaced by new wiring which is feeding some construction offices. It is copper core, 2.5mm and I am wondering what the construction people were running off this supply to make this happen. I think further enquiries may be needed - for the moment, we haven't had a fire but it obviously came close!
Thursday 18 February 2010
Training abroad
One of the things you very rapidly discover when trying to train Fire Investigators abroad is that there are a number of things that affect fire growth, spread, development and behaviour which differemarkedly from country to country. One such item is building construction, the traditional Class B structure is very rare indeed and even the type of "dry lined" and "dry wall" construction is seldom used in the Middle East - at least in those parts I am engaged in. Here in Iran the "state of the art" for light weight construction is to use PU Foam panels as curtain walls and internal divisions. It gets a layer of cement applied to both sides over a heavy metal mesh and then is faced with either a thicker layer of gypsum plaster or dressed with polished decorative stone panels, cemented and grouted in place. And they go up to more than twelve storeys with it.
Fire loads are also different, in that much of the furnishing one encounters is not foam filled, or contains very little. Certainly in the poorer quarters uphosltery tends to be done with traditional materials and a lot of natural fibre is used. One of the more amusing, from our perspective, problems has been in fitting out our real fire scenarios for the students - the curtain materials we have been supplied with don't burn. They melt, they char, the fall down - but no burn! So there are parallels, and there are some fairly interesting differences in how things behave and how the structures respond.
Another interesting matter is the electrical system. It is a hybrid in that the main system is Three Phase Three Wire with Earth Neutral. But now some parts are Four Wire and some new buildings are Four Wire, but supplied by a Three Wire supply. I shall leave it to you, the reader, to figure out what this means in terms of safety systems.
Some of the older buildings are built, managed and occupied on "traditional" lines. Fires in these areas tend to be dramatic, large and probably lethal, though we haven't as yet, been told of any. The picture below gives some idea of the Old Bazaar, Fire Safety Officers are advised to view with caution. Just in case you wondered, it covers 460 hectares....
The picture was taken on a quiet day, normally this is heaving with people, barrows and even motorcycles. And this is one of the better areas. It has certainly been an interesting experience for us and a rewarding one. The students are eager and despite the language difficulties and the problems of trying to ensure that the translation is accurate, the message does seem to be getting across successfully.
Fire loads are also different, in that much of the furnishing one encounters is not foam filled, or contains very little. Certainly in the poorer quarters uphosltery tends to be done with traditional materials and a lot of natural fibre is used. One of the more amusing, from our perspective, problems has been in fitting out our real fire scenarios for the students - the curtain materials we have been supplied with don't burn. They melt, they char, the fall down - but no burn! So there are parallels, and there are some fairly interesting differences in how things behave and how the structures respond.
Another interesting matter is the electrical system. It is a hybrid in that the main system is Three Phase Three Wire with Earth Neutral. But now some parts are Four Wire and some new buildings are Four Wire, but supplied by a Three Wire supply. I shall leave it to you, the reader, to figure out what this means in terms of safety systems.
Some of the older buildings are built, managed and occupied on "traditional" lines. Fires in these areas tend to be dramatic, large and probably lethal, though we haven't as yet, been told of any. The picture below gives some idea of the Old Bazaar, Fire Safety Officers are advised to view with caution. Just in case you wondered, it covers 460 hectares....
The picture was taken on a quiet day, normally this is heaving with people, barrows and even motorcycles. And this is one of the better areas. It has certainly been an interesting experience for us and a rewarding one. The students are eager and despite the language difficulties and the problems of trying to ensure that the translation is accurate, the message does seem to be getting across successfully.
Sunday 7 February 2010
IFE Publications
During a recent Skype call between some of us the subject of IFE publications was raised. It is widely accepted that the IFE's 2 principle FI-related books, although still having good and useful content, are outdated in many sections. It is questionable whether this can be adequately addressed in a re-edit or whether it is time for a complete change. I would like now to court some opinion from all of us in this regard and I will raise the matter with the IFE.
So, suggestions and opinions please. Bear in mind that such a project will go nowhere if it is not commercially viable.
My thoughts are that a new, single book or manual should be written to completely supercede and replace the others. Authors should be from among ourselves and other capable practitioners and should include the authors of the previous books if willing. The content and language should be internationally applicable with subsections where necessary to address other regimes and systems. It would also be a good opportunity to firmly associate research with FI.
So, suggestions and opinions please. Bear in mind that such a project will go nowhere if it is not commercially viable.
My thoughts are that a new, single book or manual should be written to completely supercede and replace the others. Authors should be from among ourselves and other capable practitioners and should include the authors of the previous books if willing. The content and language should be internationally applicable with subsections where necessary to address other regimes and systems. It would also be a good opportunity to firmly associate research with FI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
