IAAI The Scientific Method for Fire
and Explosion Investigation
A.4.6.5 - ANS-For additional facts concerning evaluation strategies see, ASTM E678,
Standard exercise for evaluation of technical records.
Analyze Data - ANS-1. Reconstruct area of foundation.
2. Examine bodily proof.
3. Interpret hearth consequences and fire patterns.
4. Correlate witness statements.
5. Chart the timeline of occasions.
6. Examine all reasonable potential unintended causes.
7. Examine documents.
Collect Data - ANS-1. Interview first responders abut actions on the scene and situations
found.
2. Conduct exterior examination.
Three. Conduct indoors examination.
Four. Identify and interview witnesses.
Five. Document and accumulate bodily proof.
6. Access document evidence (insurance, financial, and many others.)
7. Diagram the scene.
Eight. Photograph the scene.
Nine. Take investigative notes.
Court Case Benfield - ANS-This selection applied the four criteria to the testimony one
expert who held himself out to be a scientist, however no longer to the testimony of some
other expert who did not.
Court Case Daubert - ANS-This choice further advanced the criteria for admissibility of
professional testimony that can be implemented via the trial judge to four factors: trying out,
quotes of errors, peer assessment, and trendy attractiveness in a scientific community.
Court Case Frye VS United States - ANS-In reaction to "junk technological know-how" being
presented as testimony, this decision set the first preferred for admissibility of professional
testimony as "widespread reputation in a selected subject."
Court Case Kumho Tire vs Carmichael - ANS-This choice said that the 4 flexible standards
for admissibility of professional testimony applies not most effective to medical testimony,
however also to technical or different specialised expertise that is not merely medical.
Define the trouble - ANS-1. Assess the incident and put together.
2. Determine what gear, device, and employees are wanted.
Three. Understand hearth service response and actions.
and Explosion Investigation
A.4.6.5 - ANS-For additional facts concerning evaluation strategies see, ASTM E678,
Standard exercise for evaluation of technical records.
Analyze Data - ANS-1. Reconstruct area of foundation.
2. Examine bodily proof.
3. Interpret hearth consequences and fire patterns.
4. Correlate witness statements.
5. Chart the timeline of occasions.
6. Examine all reasonable potential unintended causes.
7. Examine documents.
Collect Data - ANS-1. Interview first responders abut actions on the scene and situations
found.
2. Conduct exterior examination.
Three. Conduct indoors examination.
Four. Identify and interview witnesses.
Five. Document and accumulate bodily proof.
6. Access document evidence (insurance, financial, and many others.)
7. Diagram the scene.
Eight. Photograph the scene.
Nine. Take investigative notes.
Court Case Benfield - ANS-This selection applied the four criteria to the testimony one
expert who held himself out to be a scientist, however no longer to the testimony of some
other expert who did not.
Court Case Daubert - ANS-This choice further advanced the criteria for admissibility of
professional testimony that can be implemented via the trial judge to four factors: trying out,
quotes of errors, peer assessment, and trendy attractiveness in a scientific community.
Court Case Frye VS United States - ANS-In reaction to "junk technological know-how" being
presented as testimony, this decision set the first preferred for admissibility of professional
testimony as "widespread reputation in a selected subject."
Court Case Kumho Tire vs Carmichael - ANS-This choice said that the 4 flexible standards
for admissibility of professional testimony applies not most effective to medical testimony,
however also to technical or different specialised expertise that is not merely medical.
Define the trouble - ANS-1. Assess the incident and put together.
2. Determine what gear, device, and employees are wanted.
Three. Understand hearth service response and actions.
