Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
Let me first introduce myself my name is Craig Poulter, I am a firefighter with Fire rescue New South Wales, and have been for 23 years. I am currently studying my masters in fire investigation and am looking for some help from my fellow investigators.
I am seeking information and documentation for my dissertation. At this stage it is to do with forensic and fire investigation evidence and their 'standing' in court, the number of convictions based on these experts and issues surrounding this.
Any information in regards to this subject would be most appreciated. I can be contacted on my e-mail which is;
craig.poult@internode.on.net
Thank you for your help
Craig A Poulter
L.L.B B.Bus JP GIFireE GradDipFireInvestign
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Fires Caused by TV Aerials
Its a question more than a statement, for the time being at least, and strictly speaking I should call it "Incidents of Overheating". Anyway, I am currently investigating the circumstances surrounding two incidents at the same flat, within a council block of flats where the electrical lead has been subject to an overload. On both occasions the overload has passed only through the earth wire, within the lead. Faults within the domestic earth supply, the TVs and surge protection devices are all confidently eliminated, as are other non-electrical causes, such as arson, rodent infestation and external heat source. On no occasion have any of the protection devices in the appliance, plugs, leads or domestic circuit operated.
I have relied on assistance from external experts but the conclusion we are headed towards is an earth fault on a digital aerial that is split and boosted (at mains voltage) to more than 12 flats. There are a lot of interested parties in this case that has actually caused no real damage (thanks to an alert occupier and smoke detectors) but the potential for serious consequences is significant and depending on the agreed outcome (if that's possible!) could be far-reaching. I have sent a FINDS message out referring to this incident within the UK FRS community but if anybody else in the world of fire investigation has come across similar scenarios it would be interesting to hear of them.
Best regards, Alan
I have relied on assistance from external experts but the conclusion we are headed towards is an earth fault on a digital aerial that is split and boosted (at mains voltage) to more than 12 flats. There are a lot of interested parties in this case that has actually caused no real damage (thanks to an alert occupier and smoke detectors) but the potential for serious consequences is significant and depending on the agreed outcome (if that's possible!) could be far-reaching. I have sent a FINDS message out referring to this incident within the UK FRS community but if anybody else in the world of fire investigation has come across similar scenarios it would be interesting to hear of them.
Best regards, Alan
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
IAAI - UK
Having just returned from the IAAI-UK AGM and training event in London I would like to express here how much I admire and respect what has been achieved by all involved.
I had joined IAAI many years ago mainly for the forum site which at that time was very useful. Sadly, like many forums, bulletin boards etc. it fell into disuse and even some abuse.
The formation of the UK chapter took much time and devotion by those involved but it has clearly been worth it. The informal and open manner of the personnel and structure of the organisation is refreshing. Anyone and everyone is welcome. There are no cliques. It is not expensive. Through this body the professionalism and value of fire investigation will spread through Europe and the IAAI can be worthy of the title "International".
I would encourage anyone in the field to become involved with IAAI. It is now the most substantial independant organisation in this field.
I know some have issues with the heavy USA bias but to be fair that is where IAAI started and modern USA FI methods are now more closely similar to our own. Active involvement is the only way to influence or change any organisation and IAAI are open for change.
Most of us here on this IFE SIG panel are members and it was good to see half of us at the event. Looking forward to the next.
I had joined IAAI many years ago mainly for the forum site which at that time was very useful. Sadly, like many forums, bulletin boards etc. it fell into disuse and even some abuse.
The formation of the UK chapter took much time and devotion by those involved but it has clearly been worth it. The informal and open manner of the personnel and structure of the organisation is refreshing. Anyone and everyone is welcome. There are no cliques. It is not expensive. Through this body the professionalism and value of fire investigation will spread through Europe and the IAAI can be worthy of the title "International".
I would encourage anyone in the field to become involved with IAAI. It is now the most substantial independant organisation in this field.
I know some have issues with the heavy USA bias but to be fair that is where IAAI started and modern USA FI methods are now more closely similar to our own. Active involvement is the only way to influence or change any organisation and IAAI are open for change.
Most of us here on this IFE SIG panel are members and it was good to see half of us at the event. Looking forward to the next.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Discussion topic - Memorandum of understanding
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
