December 4, 2024 • 46 mins
Randy's story begins with a life-changing encounter with the local fire chief, who recognized his potential and guided him into a career that would ignite his passion for uncovering the truth behind the flames. Listen as Randy vividly recalls the pivotal Paris Grill fire, an arson case that cemented his commitment to the field, and learn how he balanced his academic pursuits with his burgeoning career in fire investigation.
Get ready to deepen your understanding of the fire investigation landscape, as we explore the critical roles of organizations like the IAAI and NFPA in shaping industry standards. We unravel the complexities of training new graduates versus seasoned professionals and the importance of mentorship in accelerating their growth.
Together with Randy, we highlight significant documents such as NFPA 1033, 921, and the newly introduced 1321, breaking down how these standards and guides differentiate between mandatory requirements and recommendations, paving the way for a more structured and science-driven profession.
Witness the evolution and controversies within the fire investigation community as Randy sheds light on the shift from subjective methods to evidence-based approaches that have revolutionized the field over the past three decades.
We tackle the challenges of fire cause classification and the role of global organizations like NAFI and IAAI in providing essential training. Plus, gain insights into the contrasting structures of these organizations and their impact on fire investigators worldwide, as Randy shares his expertise in developing and mentoring the next generation of forensic experts.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hi, welcome to CSI on Fire, the podcast that takes
you behind the scenes of thefire investigation community.
I'm your host, mike Moulden,and episode after episode, we'll
attempt to excavate the oftendifficult but always fascinating
world of the fire investigator.
Okay, so welcome to episode.
(00:31):
I think this is episode 31 ofCSI on Fire, a fire
investigation podcast.
I've got fantastic guests ontonight.
It's Randy Watson from theStates.
So, randy, thanks very much forcoming on.
I really appreciate you.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Thank you for having me on, mike.
I really appreciate it.
I really appreciate what you'redoing with these podcasts and
spreading the news about fireinvestigation not just in the UK
but around the world.
So I really appreciate whatyou're doing.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Oh, thank you very much.
You're fantastic.
Yeah, it's taken off.
So I think we're on episode 31.
So long may it continue, butit's really about the guests.
To be honest, Randy, it's notreally anything to do with me.
It's just as I've said manytimes, I just get people on that
I want to hear from andhopefully other people want to
hear from as well.
So listen as we do is.
This format is pretty standardby now.
Tell us about yourself, Tell usabout your history and fire
(01:14):
investigation, and we'll go fromthere.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
All right, mike.
Well, my history with fireinvestigation really starts as a
teenager working in a littlegrocery store, and the fire
chief for the department where Igrew up came into that store a
couple of times a week.
He was familiar with my father,who was not involved in fire
(01:37):
investigation.
He was a mechanic and on hisside built race cars.
So he was well known.
But every time the chief wouldcome in he would find me, ask me
how school was going and kepttelling me I want you to join
the fire department as soon asyou're old enough.
So this goes on for two years.
And then he came in and I saidwell, chief, I'm turning 18.
(02:02):
And he got a big smile and saidall right, now's the time.
And so I went to training.
They had their next trainingclass and on a Thursday night
and he said can you be there?
And I said sure.
So I showed up and I got myequipment, and that is Thursday
night.
A few days later, on Mondaynight around midnight, I'm sound
(02:25):
asleep and the fire alarm goesoff.
So one minute I'm asleep, thenext minute I'm standing
straight up beside my bed in mybedroom and it says there's a
fire at the Paris Grill onRutherford Road.
Well, the Paris Grill was whatwe would call a beer joint, what
you would call a pub.
(02:45):
That was two stories and had anapartment above it.
Well, this place was a fewhundred yards, directly across
from my bedroom window, on aroad that paralleled the road I
lived on.
So I threw the curtains openand it looked like the sun was
coming up.
So I jumped in my gear and gotaround and ran up to the truck
(03:09):
with my three whole days ofexperience and asked the captain
.
I said, hey, I'm here, what canI do to help?
And of course that was actuallynothing but getting away.
So he looked up and saw thechief pulling up in his car and
he said there's the chief, gosee what he wants you to do.
In other words, kid, get out ofthe way, I'm busy.
So I trotted over to the chief,who was getting his white coat
(03:33):
and white helmet on, and I saidchief.
The captain said come see you.
And he smiled and patted me onthe back and said you follow me
tonight.
So spent the rest of the nightfollowing the chief around,
vacillating between this is thebravest person I've ever seen
and this is the craziest personI have ever seen depending on
(03:53):
how big much that wall waswaving back and forth that we
were standing beside Seveno'clock.
The fire was mostly out, but Iran home to change, to go to
school.
That was the deal I had with myparents.
I couldn't miss school, so wentto school.
After school, came back by thefire scene and one of the trucks
(04:15):
was still there.
The chief was sitting on thetailboard smoking a cigarette.
And so I kind of walked uplooking at the smoldering
remains of the Parrish Grill andlooking at the chief and I said
well, what do you thinkhappened?
And he said it looks like it'sarson that had such an impact on
me that someone wouldintentionally set a building on
(04:38):
fire and endanger all of us.
So I made the decision,standing in the middle of the
road there looking at thesmoldering remains of the
Parrish Grill and said that'swhat I want to do.
And so I talked to the chiefand I said I want to learn how
to do fire investigation and hewas well known in South Carolina
(04:59):
, where I grew up, for fireinvestigation.
He would be hired by attorneysin other areas to come look at
fire, so he would take me withhim when he would go.
So he mentored me and taught me.
And then, as I went to college,stayed involved and as I was in
(05:21):
my senior year in college, hecalled me and said hey, come by
the station.
So I went by the station, smalldepartment.
He said we're going to expandour crew and I'd like for you to
come full time with firedepartment.
So when I graduated college Iwent full time with fire
department.
But he knew fire investigationwas my passion so he continued
(05:45):
mentoring that, encouraging that, as I was with the fire
department, I also joined thesheriff's department and was
assigned to their arson unit.
So I would help the sheriff'sdepartment arson unit and then
full time with the firedepartment back and forth, so
that kind of started me on thepath of fire investigation.
So that kind of started me onthe path of fire investigation.
(06:18):
And then one day when I was atthe sheriff's department, an
investigator who had left thesheriff's department and went
into the private sector, and Isaid, well, I may be.
He said, well, I'll be comingto town, we'll interview and see
where it goes.
And at the time we talked I waslike 23.
So I was a kid.
So he come, we interviewed, hepassed me on to his boss.
(06:43):
His boss eventually came totown and interviewed and the
same day I told the chief thatthey had talked to me and all
that.
He said hey, man, that's reallya great move for you.
He said we were getting readyto move you to lieutenant, but
that's what you were meant to do.
In June of 1983, I went to workfor a company called INS
(07:08):
Investigations Bureau doing fireinvestigations for the
insurance industry.
Mainly I've been on the privatesector ever since that.
I was with INS for almost 10years and I've been with SEA
Limited almost 32 years.
Yeah wow.
It's been a great journey.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah, fantastic.
And it's nice to hear that youhad a sort of mentor at the
beginning.
And I always think it'sfantastic when some people get a
bit funny when you say, well,I'm moving on to the next step.
And I think it's great whenthey say, well, yeah, go to
develop.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
You know, I always think it's fantastic when people
develop and move on tosomething else rather than try
and keep them in the same place.
Absolutely, mike.
He had such a passion for thefire service.
He had been in the fire serviceforever, but he also knew that
I love the fire department.
But he also knew fireinvestigation.
There was going to be very, verylimited opportunities there.
It was a smaller department,this wasn't a lot of
opportunities, and he recognizedthis was an opportunity for me
(08:12):
to move in a direction that heknew that that was my passion.
So, like you said, rather thansay well, why don't you stay
here, we're going to make you alieutenant and you can move up,
he knew that really wouldn'thave fulfilled me.
He was very supportive,encouraged me, even to the fact,
after I moved into the privatesector working, I would still go
(08:35):
by the fire department and talkabout cases with him.
Hey, chief, what do you thinkabout this?
This is what I'm seeing.
I would show him pictures and Ithink that's something that the
fire investigation communityreally needs to embrace the
concept of mentoring, becausethat's how we grow as an
(08:55):
industry, that's how we getbetter as an industry by
mentoring, encouraging,supporting each other.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Sure, definitely 100% .
And I think it's interesting aswell to bring on the next
generation, because obviouslyyou've been at SEA, for are you
the longest serving member there?
Is there anyone beating you?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Currently I'm the longest there in fire
investigation.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Yeah, wow.
So I think it's reallyimportant that we bring in.
I think one of the things I'mencouraging people or I'm trying
to encourage people is to thinkabout taking on graduates,
because a lot of the firm Idon't know about in America, but
certainly in the UK it tendedto be there wasn't that many
firms that would take youstraight from college, take you
from straight from uni, andthere's probably very good
(09:37):
reasons and sound reasons forthat.
But I think it's important.
I encourage my listeners andstudents that I've taught as
well, just to reach out topeople, and I've got a couple of
people that are contacting meon a fairly regular basis just
to give them some advice.
And I mean, I don't know it allby any way, shape or form, and
you've got 32 years and yourknowledge compared to mine is
well not comparable, but it'simportant just to get the right
(10:01):
information, sometimes to speakto someone who can guide you.
Really, I think.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Mike, that's incredibly important.
I have been to variousuniversities to speak to the
students, encourage them.
I have gone to some tointerview students to bring on
board with SEA and one of thethings we have found is
sometimes it's difficultbringing someone on straight out
of school because we know it'sgoing to be a long ramp up.
(10:28):
It's going to take time andrepetition, but they don't have
any bad habits either.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Where sometimes, when you hire someone that has been
in it 20 or 30 years, sometimesthere's some bad habits there,
or sometimes there's not badhabits, but you got to change
the way they do things to bemore in line with how you're
going to do or our company does.
So we embrace that bringingpeople on.
(10:57):
When I was president of IAAI,one of my major pushes was the
student part of our association,because when you look out the
IAAI annual conference or at ourpassion for what we do with a
younger generation and then putourselves at their disposal,
(11:31):
look, I am here to help you andopen the book completely and
share with them everything thatwe've learned, because they do
not need to make the samemistakes I made I've already
made them, so they don't need to.
They'll make plenty on their own, but they don't need to make
mine, and if I share with them,hopefully it'll get them to
(11:52):
where they want to be a littlequicker, because they don't have
to.
I've been around this for 47years now, so I made an awful
lot of mistakes and I canhopefully help them prevent them
from making some of those samemistakes.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Yeah, definitely.
I think, even picking up onwhat you said there about moving
, even when I've moved from onefirm to another firm, the basic
principles they should beexactly the same, but even some
of the wording gets well.
I don't like the way that youword that.
Well, that's kind ofindoctrinated from your previous
employer.
That's how you've been taughthow to do it, so I think it's
quite difficult to break out ofthat.
You mentioned the IWI,obviously, and you are the
(12:30):
ex-president, past president,and I know you've had massive
amount of input on 921, 1033,etc.
But we've had the recent 1321come out.
But what's the involvement inthat?
For those who don't know, howdoes the IWAI kind of set those
guides and standards?
How does it work?
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Well, those 1033, which says professional
qualifications for fireinvestigator, 921, which is the
guide for fire and explosioninvestigation, and now the new
document NFPA 1321 for standardof fire investigation units, all
of those are governed by theNational Fire Protection
Association, nfpa, which is aseparate entity from IAAI.
(13:11):
And now IAAI has been veryinvolved in those documents by
having representatives serve onthose committees.
I've been fortunate to havebeen a member of well, I'm a
life member of NFPA now, butI've been a member since 1984
and started with the 921Committee in 1991.
(13:31):
And the thing that makes theNFPA documents what they are is
the standards developmentprocess they follow.
The committees are very tightlygoverned.
No one category of member canhave more than 30%
representation on the committee,so no one category can get
(13:53):
control.
They call that balance.
Everything that goes in adocument has to receive it goes
in by consensus and in FPAconsensus means it received a
two-thirds vote.
So every change has to receivea two-thirds vote of the
committee to make it in.
But the documents are put outthere.
(14:13):
There is public input thatcomes in to change it and the
committee must act on all thepublic input and then that gets
published and then there is acomment period on the actions
the committee took on publicinput and then the committee
once again must review all ofthe comments.
Then the document is finished.
(14:33):
There is an appeal period.
Where someone who has submittedpublic input and submitted
comments doesn't like what thecommittee did, they can file an
appeal.
And submitted comments doesn'tlike what the committee did,
they can file an appeal and ifit's certified that will go
before the NFPA membership.
That happened on 13-21.
We finished and there was anappeal.
It's called a notice of intentto make a motion.
(14:55):
The submitter didn't like thecommittee's action so this past
June I had to go to the NFPA'sannual meeting and present the
document before the membershipand then defend the committee's
decision on the appeal and thenthe membership votes and they
(15:15):
decided with the committee thatrelease the document be
published and 1321 was justpublished back in August and
1321 was just published back inAugust.
So it's a very good process thatNFPA has to be open for public
inputs for changes and IAAI hashad a representative on these
(15:37):
committees since they started.
So IAAI NAFI has hadrepresentatives on the committee
Others.
Aai NAFI has hadrepresentatives on the committee
Others.
So it's a very open processwhich allows for the documents
to grow and improve.
921 is on a three-year cycle,so they're a new addition every
three years.
1033 is on a five-year cycle.
(15:58):
1321, being a standard will beon a five-year cycle, so it's a
very good process with lots ofinput, lots of review, to get
from the beginning to the endwhen a document is published.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Sure, I know like 1321 is a standard and 921 is a
guide.
So just take our listenersthrough.
What's the difference?
Just tell us, from your pointof view, what is the actual
difference between the standardand the guide.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Okay, mike, that's a really good question and I'm
going to answer that two ways.
I'm going to answer it with myNFPA hat on how NFPA
differentiates them.
Then I'm going to talk a littlebit about a port system, which
I know it's a little differentbetween us Yanks over here
across the pond and what youhave over in the UK From an NBA
(16:51):
standpoint.
It's pretty much a very simpledifference.
A standard like 1033, 1321 isrequired to have mandatory
language.
You will see terms like shalland must and they are very small
documents.
(17:11):
1033 is 26 pages.
I think 1321 is 30 pages,because the only thing that can
be in the text is mandatorylanguage.
Any explanation has to go inthe annex On a guide.
A guide cannot containmandatory language.
(17:33):
So you see words like shouldand may and the entire body of
the text is explanatory.
It contains the recommendations, suggestions.
So it not only talks about whatto do, but it provides guidance
on how to do.
It talks about what to do, butit provides guidance on how to
(17:59):
do it.
The guide of 921 talks about thescientific method, but with
each step there is specificguidance in what the steps mean
and how you carry them out.
So that's the big difference isthe mandatory language.
Now the second part of that andI'll use 921 as an example.
According to NFPA, 921 is aguide because it contains
non-mandatory language.
(18:19):
However, in the justice system,judges are using the term guide
and standard interchangeably.
They have referred to 921 as astandard of care, a gold
standard and various phraseslike that, and a lot of it ties
to that scientific method.
(18:40):
So when I speak and teacharound, one is what matters is
how the court views it.
So if they're viewing it as astandard, you might as well view
it as a standard also in yourmind.
But from a practical standpointit's that dividing line of
mandatory language versusnon-mandatory.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Yeah, sure, and I think, obviously to work, would
you I mean, this is just myimpression, if you like, but to
work in the United States as afire investigator?
You've got to know 921 very,very well and you will be held
up account.
You'll be compared against thatwhen giving testimony etc.
You'll be held in account interms of definitions, in terms
of some of the common languageand the practices, etc.
(19:24):
You would definitely be held upagainst that, wouldn't you?
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Absolutely.
One of the things I do I didthis at the UK conference is
when I'm getting ready to speakon them, I will take out a ruler
and I will hold it up and saywe use this to measure things.
The court system is using 921to measure something.
(19:50):
They're using it to UnitedStates.
Another reason it is used soextensively is in 1993, there
was a decision in a court calledDaubert and it addressed how
judges are the gatekeeper forexpert testimony and one of the
(20:12):
things that comes up when aninvestigator is planning to
testify is the methodology.
One judge stated that there'stwo questions regarding expert
testimony Did the expert use theright methodology and did he
use that methodology correctly?
(20:34):
Methodology and did he use thatmethodology correctly.
The right methodology means ithas been published, it's been
peer-reviewed, it's beengenerally accepted in the
industry.
That's where the scientificmethod out of 921 comes into
play.
The second part of that is youhave to demonstrate that you
used it properly.
It very much is the measuringstick, if you will, that an
(20:58):
investigator's investigationwill be compared to in the
justice system.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
Yeah, You've been involved for a long time.
So did you see?
I mean, our younger listenersprobably would just go hey,
there's 921, fantastic referencebook, guide etc.
Teach me pretty much all I needto know, apart from the
practical aspects and theexposure to actual, real scenes
etc.
You must have seen a massiveamount of change between 84.
When was the first one?
(21:25):
In the 80s, I think so now.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Yeah, the first edition of 921 came out in 1992.
It was 14 chapters and 119pages, okay.
And the 2024 edition that cameout the first part of this year
was 29 chapters and 500 pages.
Yes, there's been a huge changein 921 from where we began,
(21:52):
because I started before therewas 921.
And it was kind of a wild west.
There was nothing really tochallenge you with.
So I could go into court and Idid, I could testify to whatever
and they were kind of hard tocross-examine me because
basically it was because I saidit was and there wasn't anything
(22:15):
to say it wasn't.
And 921 changed all that andthe scientific method was in
that first edition.
I think the greatest change infire investigation has been the
scientific method and how itapplies to what we do.
And then, as you moved forwardover the decades with the
different additions, theadvances in science and research
(22:38):
has been a huge change Becausesome of the things we believed
and thought meant something.
Now science has said no, thatdoesn't mean what we thought it
meant, because there's beentesting and there's been
research and all of that.
I think one of the biggestchanges that we have seen
probably in the last 20 years isthe effects of ventilation.
(23:03):
As a firefighter I alwaysunderstood ventilation from the
standpoint of the fire isventing out the top of the door,
so we get down low, so we canget under it and let the fire
vent out.
And if we make entry andunderstood why there was more
damage around doors and windowsbecause the fire was venting out
, but from a fire investigationstandpoint, we never understood
(23:26):
the effects of ventilation onthe inside of the structure and
how it could create patternsbecause of the ventilation.
That realization changed how welook at fire patterns and the
science of fire investigation,and it caused us to look more to
the science, look more to theresearch.
(23:47):
There's been huge changes overthe last 30 plus years.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Sure, yeah, I was listening to I don't know if
you've had a chance, but I waslistening to In Focus Fire
Investigation with Scott andChastity and that's another
fantastic podcast and it reallystruck me.
I was listening to theliterally yesterday to the
latest episode and they wereScott was saying about how fire
investigation was more of an artthan a science and I think that
sums up really nicely is thatit's gone from purely because I
(24:12):
say Ipsy, whatever thatexpression is because I say so,
to actually okay, now I've gotto prove it, type thing.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Oh, absolutely, it was 100% the land of the Ipsy
Dixit expert.
It is so because I said it wasso.
Now we have moved from the artof fire investigation to the
science of a profession.
Now there is still art in fireinvestigation, but the art part
(24:41):
is the art of testimony how youtestify.
But the science of ourprofession is now what supports
our ability to testify.
So we moved from thatipsy-dixit, where there was
really no basis for our opinions, to now we are in a profession
(25:02):
that has a science basis for ouropinions.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
I think the thing that I've noticed as well just
in my short term with the 921,is that not only do things get
added as our knowledge increases, but things also get taken out.
Some of the myths haveobviously been taken out over
the years that when the earlyeditions were there in black and
white, and obviously, asthey've been disproved wrong,
they've been taken out.
But also things move around aswell.
(25:26):
Things have changed from onedifferent particular area to
another sort of area.
I know arc mapping wassomething that entirely got an
entire chapter.
It's not just about addinginformation, it's also about
moving and developing and takingthings out.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think the arc mapping isa good one because originally,
as part of the origin chapter,it was one of the big four.
I mean, we had fire dynamics,we had interviews, we had fire
patterns and we had art mapping.
Well, when art mapping wasoriginally gone, went in, it was
(26:03):
thought to be much bigger thanit was.
As we progressed we figured outthat the cluster of arts, one
art mapping, is thedocumentation of arc sites.
Well, with the goal that itwould help with the origin
determination, what we figuredout as we went forward was the
(26:24):
cluster of arc sites forms apattern.
It really became this needs togo into Chapter 6 on fire
patterns.
And then the arc mappingdiscussion that was in the cause
.
One of the big four moved up tobe included in patterns because
it talks about fire effects andfire damage, including that on
(26:48):
electrical conductors.
We learned more and there was abig discussion and debate on
that.
But when you look at an arc mapyou can see there is a pattern
to it.
So it really fit into thepattern.
So the more we learn, the moreresearch we learn, the more we
understand.
Okay, this is better suited atanother location because it fits
(27:10):
better.
Like I say, we've removed somethings over the years, and one
of the big things that wasaddressed in the 2011 edition
and it took a little while toget is the concept negative
corpus.
Well, I don't know where thephrase came from, but it was a
well-known fact back in my earlydays to hear an investigator go
(27:35):
.
I eliminated everything else.
Therefore, it's ours.
Okay, you have evidence ofthings.
It's not.
What is the evidence that saysit is?
Well, I've eliminated that.
Okay, I get that, but what'sthe evidence to support it?
So, when this change was made,the fire investigation community
about lost their mind and wedidn't really word it very well
(27:58):
to start with, but then we kindof got it sorted out.
So now it talks about theemphasis on the evidence to
support your opinion, whateverit is.
Yes, there's evidence over herethat I can point to that
eliminates something, but thisis the evidence I can point to
that supports the opinion thatthis was an incendiary fire.
(28:20):
Things like that have reallychanged as we've gone through
the process.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Yeah, and just an observation.
I think it's fantastic, randy,we haven't prompted this at all
in the sense of I didn't saywhat questions I was going to
really ask you or anything, so Ilove how you can just go in
2011, chapter 6.
It's fantastic you know thisdocument so well and you've
obviously been involved butabsolutely brilliant that you
can just wrap off your tonguecertain sections.
(28:46):
I was going to ask you what wasthe most controversial thing
that's come out of 921.
It's probably that was it.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
I would say that was definitely big and it was one of
those things that, because Iwas chairman of the committee
when this happened, I kind ofhad this giant target on my back
it was all my fault, but weknew this issue for a long time.
We couldn't figure out how toarticulate it into the document
(29:13):
and then we finally got it inthere and it really wasn't done
very well.
We didn't do it as well as itshould have been done and then
it took a couple of additions toget it together and I don't
know.
We did a podcast addressingthat as well.
Another more recent bigcontroversy and I was sure when
it went down too more recent bigcontroversy and I was chair
(29:37):
when it went down too, so I'vebeen the source of a lot of
trouble over the years was whenwe took out a chapter on fire
cause classification.
There was a huge confusion onfire cause versus fire cause
classification.
If I gave somebody a scenarioand said, okay, you've got a
fire on the stovetop and thefrying pan is there and the
(29:59):
grease is there and the burner'son high, what's the cause of
the fire?
And they would say, well,accidental.
I said accidental is not acause.
The cause is what's thecircumstances that brought the
fuel, the heat, the oxygentogether in such a way that we
have a fire.
The classification is the labelyou're going to put on that
cause after you determine thecause.
(30:20):
We were dealing with theconfusion there for that people
understanding cause versus theclassification.
The other issue we were havingis in the US they have a system
called INFERS, national FireReporting, so the reports are
(30:41):
all dropped down.
So you would have to click on adrop down on the classification
.
Well, it's got a whole list ofclassifications that we only
listed four.
So the classifications, and weonly listed four.
So the classifications weredifferent and classification
means different things indifferent locations.
It's an international document,so what we decided to do was to
(31:04):
take classifications out as itsown chapter.
We moved the discussion ofclassification into the cause
chapter, because the cause iswhat we're classifying, and then
we pointed them to resourcesthat talk about cause
classification so that if youneed to classify the fire cause,
(31:26):
here is resources to do that.
And again the fire investigationcommunity lost its mind because
now oh, 921 says we can'tclassify a fire cause.
No, we've never said that.
We've simply said if you needto classify the fire cause, here
is resources to do that, butyou have to determine the cause
(31:48):
first.
Then, if you need to, you put alabel on it, and I know
classification is reallyimportant for statistics.
The percentage of accidentalfires versus intentional fires
versus that was another bigcontroversy and once it got
explained I know fireinvestigators around the world
(32:10):
are pretty much the same Peoplewere really upset over something
that they had not read.
It was based really on rumorand speculation, and then what I
would do presentations on andsay this is why this is and, by
the way it didn't go lead it'shere.
(32:31):
Then it would be.
Oh well, that's not as bad aswe thought it was, but it took
that explanation to be able toget there.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
So, yeah, yeah, you know it's a process yeah, I was
gonna ask you how does it?
I mean, there's obviously theiwi podcast, which is a very
good podcast, is how I reallystarted to.
Really that's the first podcastin five years I ever listened
to and there's some really goodstuff on there.
But how does does themembership become?
Avoid those kind of rumors etcetera?
Is there workshops or is itjust coming to the conference
(33:01):
every year?
Or obviously, in the States,the IWI you being ex-president
it's a massive kind of body withindividual chapters in all 50
states.
So how do you manage that?
How does that work?
Does it get disseminated down?
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Yeah, Well, sometimes it really doesn't work very
well, but one of the things wehave IAA has done a good job at
is with CFI Trainer.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Oh yeah, fantastic.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
And I've been involved in several modules and
we did one on the negativecorpus issue that I mentioned
earlier and that addressed whatit is and what it's not, so that
helps get the information.
I do a lot of speaking atvarious chapter events.
(33:50):
That helps push it out, as wellas the IAAI at their conference
and other organizations such asthe National Association of
Fire Investigators.
They have a conference so theinformation gets shared but
sometimes it takes a while toget accepted, Even with 921, the
first edition was in 1992.
It really didn't get acceptedeven by IAAI until the 98 to
(34:13):
2001 editions, because here wasthis document that came out that
now is telling us how we'resupposed to do our job.
Well, you and I both know howmuch fire investigators, cops
and firemen love things thattell them what to do.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, there's nothing moreresistant than a cop or a
firefighter to changes there,really, because we've done it
this way and that good enoughyesterday, so why are we
changing today?
but yeah, absolutely and they'recomplaining about how it is now
yeah, exactly, yeah, fantasticlisten, I picked up something
(34:52):
there as well about.
There is obviously anothermassive.
I'm a member of nationalassociation of fire
investigators as well, so you'vebeen around long, randy, to
know kind of the history there.
I mean, I've been a member formany, many years but they seem
to be the quieter brother, ifyou like, of the IWAI.
They've got certifications thesame as the IWAI.
So I must get somebody on thecurrent president or somebody on
(35:13):
from NAFI.
But what's the history there?
Were they two separateorganizations?
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Do on from NAAFI.
But what's the history there?
Were they two separateorganizations?
Do you know the history?
Well, actually I do know someof it because I've been a member
of the National Association ofFire Investigators since the 80s
also, and I hold all three oftheir certifications as well.
My understanding and this goesback to the 40s and 50s.
Originally it's myunderstanding IAAI was going to
be mainly for public sector, andthe founder of MAFI, john
(35:52):
Kennedy, wanted some because hewas involved at the meeting when
IAAI was hatched and he feltthat there needed to be
something that was open toprivate sector also.
So he started the NationalAssociation of Fire
Investigators.
So they were kind of twoentities.
(36:13):
I've described them as bothorganizations are driving down
the same interstate highway indifferent lanes at different
places.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
They both have the same ultimate goal, I believe to
provide training andcertifications to the fire
investigation community aroundthe world.
They just approach themdifferently.
Sure, the IAAI their officersare elected.
As the president, I served oneyear as president.
Nafi does not have an electedleadership.
(36:48):
Okay, John Kennedy started it.
His son, Patrick Kennedy, whowas a very dear friend of mine,
headed it up for a very longtime, and they have a board of
governors which is the governingbody, and then they have a
board of directors which kind ofsubservient to the board of
governors, and now Pat passedaway in 2017.
(37:11):
And his daughter, CatherineKennedy Smith, is now the
chairman of the board and theyhave a couple of conferences a
year.
They don't have chapters.
Iaai has chapters.
There's a difference.
The certifications havedifferent qualifications and
criteria to be certified.
They both require testing.
(37:32):
They both require points.
The points are different.
How you accumulate the points,how you account for the points
are different.
How you accumulate the points,how you account for the points
are different.
Iaai, we're over 11,000 membersworldwide now.
I believe the last I heard fromNAFI they were in the
8,000-member category.
I would say IAAI is a morecohesive organization because of
(37:57):
our chapters and electedleadership, whereas BFI is a
whole organization that's notbroken up by chapters.
Gotcha, you don't sometimeshave that bond that you have
with the individual chaptersaround, because IAAI would have
83 chapters now around the world.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
Sorry, I mean, I completely put you on the spot
there.
So sorry about that, randy, butyeah, I was just more
interested.
Sometimes these questions cometo me and I just think, oh well,
you'll definitely know thehistory.
But, like you say, I think abit like Yanks and Brits, we're
similar but slightly different.
Same goals, same kind ofoutlook really, but yeah,
slightly different.
But yeah, as I say, I'm justconscious.
I've had a lot of people onfrom IWI, and I refer to IWI and
(38:42):
UK AFI quite a lot Because, asyou say, we don't have a NAFI
contingent in the UK becausethey don't have the chapter.
So I guess that makes sense.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Now the vice president of NAFI is Mick
Beasley, who is in the UK.
Speaker 1 (38:59):
Yeah, okay, good.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
And he's been the vice president for a very long
time.
Okay, and I really do believethat going down the highway in
different lanes at differentplaces along, the route really
kind of, because they both havethe same goal.
Ultimately, it's just how theygo about doing.
It is different.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
I was actually surprised how many members they
had.
That shocked me actually,because I thought it would be
less.
It would be a lot less, I don'tknow.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
It just seemed quieter, I guess, but anyway,
and I think a lot of that tiesback to the chapters.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
With the chapters.
That gives the IWAI footprintsin a lot more places.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
That's why you may have more.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
Yeah, I mean you see, obviously I don't know you
correct me if I'm wrong, but isthere a chapter in every state
in the US?
Speaker 2 (39:48):
There's a chapter in every state in the US, and then
we've got the UK chapter andwe've got the European chapter,
that one in Ireland.
I mean there's a pretty bigfootprint in Europe.
The Central and South Americais really a growing area.
The Spanish-speaking world isreally huge.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
Yeah, and Australia, they just about have their
annual.
I think it might have happenedor it's about to happen.
Next week, their Australianconference.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
Yeah, I mean because you've got a couple of chapters
in Australia plus New Zealandnext door, and then you've got
the African chapter.
So yeah, there's a lot going on.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
Yeah, I like to try and my intention is to try and
get as many differentnationalities on to understand.
I think we pretty much do avery similar thing across the
world.
There might be some slightidiosyncrasies in each country,
but we pretty much do.
From a, you can be a fireinvestigator in Africa as well
as you can in Singapore.
Speaker 2 (40:47):
Yeah, I mean the fire is physics and science-based.
I'm pretty sure the science isthe same in the UK as it is in
the US.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
Yeah, just with more tea.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
Yeah, you guys take more breaks and have more tea.
The big thing that we see.
There's two really big areas.
One is electrical.
The electrical systems aredifferent around the world.
Yeah, definitely yeah,electricity is still the same,
but the systems are different.
And then, of course, the legalsystem is different all over the
(41:23):
world.
There are some where down inSouth America where the
investigator never reallytestifies.
He provides a report to thecourt and that is the testimony
testimony.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
Yeah, single sort of single expert, the sort of kind
of francophile kind of systemwhere one expert, one report and
the judge decides for himselfor other than the adversarial
kind of judge defense versusprosecution.
But yeah, yeah, fantastic,really interested.
So, unfortunately, randy, as Iknew we would, we could probably
do a four-hour podcast, butwe're starting to run out of
time unfortunately.
But what's next for you?
Mean, you had the technicaltraining at SEA and are you
(42:02):
doing much on that?
Speaker 2 (42:03):
Yes, I'm the director of technical training, which
really this kind of fits in withmy passion.
I'm responsible for thetraining of new engineers, new
investigators.
We bring them in, we put themthrough a training program.
We have what we call an expertboot camp that all new people go
through and we do mockscenarios and the ramp up
(42:24):
depends on the individual.
So that's really what a lot ofmy focus is.
I still handle cases, but notas many anymore because I'm
pretty well tied up with thetraining of the new staff and
just trying to help them movedown the road toward being the
best forensic expert they can be.
Speaker 1 (42:42):
Yeah, fantastic, and I mean with your experience and
knowledge and just your years ofexposure as well, right from
the beginning, from like 17, 18years old.
So, wow, it must be great tohave a resource like you in that
sort of organization.
I expect your engineers arevery good.
Is there anything else wehaven't covered, randy, that you
wanted to cover today?
(43:02):
I mean, as I say, we'llprobably get you on again
because there's so much to talkabout, but is there anything
before we sort of wrap it up?
Speaker 2 (43:08):
Mike, I just really appreciate people like yourself
and others that are doing thesepodcasts to get information out
there.
You mentioned earlier about howdo you get information out when
something is going on, and inthe past the only way we could
was, in person, go to aconference and speak, and then
(43:30):
those select few that are atthat conference are the only
ones that gets it and then it'sup to them to go back and share
it, whereas things like whatyou're doing and others are
doing with these podcasts.
It provides the opportunity forinformation to be shared around
the world so that people aregetting exposed to it.
I think this is one of thegreatest things going right now
(43:52):
to be able to share, and one ofmy mantras the theme of my
speech when I was sworn in aspresident was rise up together,
strive for excellence, and Ithink your podcast and others
allow us to rise up together inpursuit of the goal of being
excellent.
So I really appreciate whatyou're doing.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
Fantastic.
Well, thanks so, so much forthat.
I mean, it means a great deal,honestly, Jenna, it came from me
just looking for a podcast formy own education because, you
only know, I've been around fora long time in the crime scene
world and, to a certain extent,with the fire scene, but I
wanted to be compared to some ofthe people that I'd worked with
.
I was thinking, oh Christ,they're really good.
They're really good at whatthey do.
(44:34):
How do I get better when you'redriving?
And I would drive many hoursfrom fire scene to a fire scene.
I was desperate for someknowledge, as I was, just
because it's wasted time.
Driving is just wasted time,isn't it?
That's how I see it.
And I was thinking, so I'dlisten to podcasts, I'd listen
to the IWI podcast and then Ithink, well, where's the next
one?
And that's really whatgenerated the sense of there
(44:54):
must be other people.
I know James Acott, who, I addon, I know he listens to me when
he's driving from scene toscene.
Pete Mansey listens to me whenhe's driving from scene to scene
.
So I think the driving aspectis a big factor.
But that's certainly why Istarted it, and just for me to
be a better fire investigatorand I've learned so much just
from having these conversations.
It only sort of leaves mereally, randy, to say thanks so
(45:16):
much for coming on.
I really appreciate it andthanks for your time.
I know we got together lastweek just for a quick make sure
that we were good.
Yeah, so fantastic.
Thanks very much for coming on.
Speaker 2 (45:24):
Glad to Anytime Happy to be here.
Yeah, smashing.
Speaker 1 (45:28):
All right, thanks so much.
You take care.
You grab a coffee and I'll goand grab some tea.
Sounds admire.
Thank you, all right, take care, thanks, randy.
Hey, thank you for listening tocsi on fire.
Please don't forget to like,subscribe and suggest future
topics on our web page.
Remember factor non-verbal.
(45:49):
Take care, good hunting.
I hope to see you on the nextone.
Cheers.
Hi, welcome to CSI on Fire, the podcast that takes
you behind the scenes of thefire investigation community.
I'm your host, mike Moulden,and episode after episode, we'll
attempt to excavate the oftendifficult but always fascinating
world of the fire investigator.
Okay, so welcome to episode.
(00:31):
I think this is episode 31 ofCSI on Fire, a fire
investigation podcast.
I've got fantastic guests ontonight.
It's Randy Watson from theStates.
So, randy, thanks very much forcoming on.
I really appreciate you.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Thank you for having me on, mike.
I really appreciate it.
I really appreciate what you'redoing with these podcasts and
spreading the news about fireinvestigation not just in the UK
but around the world.
So I really appreciate whatyou're doing.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Oh, thank you very much.
You're fantastic.
Yeah, it's taken off.
So I think we're on episode 31.
So long may it continue, butit's really about the guests.
To be honest, Randy, it's notreally anything to do with me.
It's just as I've said manytimes, I just get people on that
I want to hear from andhopefully other people want to
hear from as well.
So listen as we do is.
This format is pretty standardby now.
Tell us about yourself, Tell usabout your history and fire
(01:14):
investigation, and we'll go fromthere.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
All right, mike.
Well, my history with fireinvestigation really starts as a
teenager working in a littlegrocery store, and the fire
chief for the department where Igrew up came into that store a
couple of times a week.
He was familiar with my father,who was not involved in fire
(01:37):
investigation.
He was a mechanic and on hisside built race cars.
So he was well known.
But every time the chief wouldcome in he would find me, ask me
how school was going and kepttelling me I want you to join
the fire department as soon asyou're old enough.
So this goes on for two years.
And then he came in and I saidwell, chief, I'm turning 18.
(02:02):
And he got a big smile and saidall right, now's the time.
And so I went to training.
They had their next trainingclass and on a Thursday night
and he said can you be there?
And I said sure.
So I showed up and I got myequipment, and that is Thursday
night.
A few days later, on Mondaynight around midnight, I'm sound
(02:25):
asleep and the fire alarm goesoff.
So one minute I'm asleep, thenext minute I'm standing
straight up beside my bed in mybedroom and it says there's a
fire at the Paris Grill onRutherford Road.
Well, the Paris Grill was whatwe would call a beer joint, what
you would call a pub.
(02:45):
That was two stories and had anapartment above it.
Well, this place was a fewhundred yards, directly across
from my bedroom window, on aroad that paralleled the road I
lived on.
So I threw the curtains openand it looked like the sun was
coming up.
So I jumped in my gear and gotaround and ran up to the truck
(03:09):
with my three whole days ofexperience and asked the captain
.
I said, hey, I'm here, what canI do to help?
And of course that was actuallynothing but getting away.
So he looked up and saw thechief pulling up in his car and
he said there's the chief, gosee what he wants you to do.
In other words, kid, get out ofthe way, I'm busy.
So I trotted over to the chief,who was getting his white coat
(03:33):
and white helmet on, and I saidchief.
The captain said come see you.
And he smiled and patted me onthe back and said you follow me
tonight.
So spent the rest of the nightfollowing the chief around,
vacillating between this is thebravest person I've ever seen
and this is the craziest personI have ever seen depending on
(03:53):
how big much that wall waswaving back and forth that we
were standing beside Seveno'clock.
The fire was mostly out, but Iran home to change, to go to
school.
That was the deal I had with myparents.
I couldn't miss school, so wentto school.
After school, came back by thefire scene and one of the trucks
(04:15):
was still there.
The chief was sitting on thetailboard smoking a cigarette.
And so I kind of walked uplooking at the smoldering
remains of the Parrish Grill andlooking at the chief and I said
well, what do you thinkhappened?
And he said it looks like it'sarson that had such an impact on
me that someone wouldintentionally set a building on
(04:38):
fire and endanger all of us.
So I made the decision,standing in the middle of the
road there looking at thesmoldering remains of the
Parrish Grill and said that'swhat I want to do.
And so I talked to the chiefand I said I want to learn how
to do fire investigation and hewas well known in South Carolina
(04:59):
, where I grew up, for fireinvestigation.
He would be hired by attorneysin other areas to come look at
fire, so he would take me withhim when he would go.
So he mentored me and taught me.
And then, as I went to college,stayed involved and as I was in
(05:21):
my senior year in college, hecalled me and said hey, come by
the station.
So I went by the station, smalldepartment.
He said we're going to expandour crew and I'd like for you to
come full time with firedepartment.
So when I graduated college Iwent full time with fire
department.
But he knew fire investigationwas my passion so he continued
(05:45):
mentoring that, encouraging that, as I was with the fire
department, I also joined thesheriff's department and was
assigned to their arson unit.
So I would help the sheriff'sdepartment arson unit and then
full time with the firedepartment back and forth, so
that kind of started me on thepath of fire investigation.
So that kind of started me onthe path of fire investigation.
(06:18):
And then one day when I was atthe sheriff's department, an
investigator who had left thesheriff's department and went
into the private sector, and Isaid, well, I may be.
He said, well, I'll be comingto town, we'll interview and see
where it goes.
And at the time we talked I waslike 23.
So I was a kid.
So he come, we interviewed, hepassed me on to his boss.
(06:43):
His boss eventually came totown and interviewed and the
same day I told the chief thatthey had talked to me and all
that.
He said hey, man, that's reallya great move for you.
He said we were getting readyto move you to lieutenant, but
that's what you were meant to do.
In June of 1983, I went to workfor a company called INS
(07:08):
Investigations Bureau doing fireinvestigations for the
insurance industry.
Mainly I've been on the privatesector ever since that.
I was with INS for almost 10years and I've been with SEA
Limited almost 32 years.
Yeah wow.
It's been a great journey.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah, fantastic.
And it's nice to hear that youhad a sort of mentor at the
beginning.
And I always think it'sfantastic when some people get a
bit funny when you say, well,I'm moving on to the next step.
And I think it's great whenthey say, well, yeah, go to
develop.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
You know, I always think it's fantastic when people
develop and move on tosomething else rather than try
and keep them in the same place.
Absolutely, mike.
He had such a passion for thefire service.
He had been in the fire serviceforever, but he also knew that
I love the fire department.
But he also knew fireinvestigation.
There was going to be very, verylimited opportunities there.
It was a smaller department,this wasn't a lot of
opportunities, and he recognizedthis was an opportunity for me
(08:12):
to move in a direction that heknew that that was my passion.
So, like you said, rather thansay well, why don't you stay
here, we're going to make you alieutenant and you can move up,
he knew that really wouldn'thave fulfilled me.
He was very supportive,encouraged me, even to the fact,
after I moved into the privatesector working, I would still go
(08:35):
by the fire department and talkabout cases with him.
Hey, chief, what do you thinkabout this?
This is what I'm seeing.
I would show him pictures and Ithink that's something that the
fire investigation communityreally needs to embrace the
concept of mentoring, becausethat's how we grow as an
(08:55):
industry, that's how we getbetter as an industry by
mentoring, encouraging,supporting each other.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Sure, definitely 100% .
And I think it's interesting aswell to bring on the next
generation, because obviouslyyou've been at SEA, for are you
the longest serving member there?
Is there anyone beating you?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Currently I'm the longest there in fire
investigation.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Yeah, wow.
So I think it's reallyimportant that we bring in.
I think one of the things I'mencouraging people or I'm trying
to encourage people is to thinkabout taking on graduates,
because a lot of the firm Idon't know about in America, but
certainly in the UK it tendedto be there wasn't that many
firms that would take youstraight from college, take you
from straight from uni, andthere's probably very good
(09:37):
reasons and sound reasons forthat.
But I think it's important.
I encourage my listeners andstudents that I've taught as
well, just to reach out topeople, and I've got a couple of
people that are contacting meon a fairly regular basis just
to give them some advice.
And I mean, I don't know it allby any way, shape or form, and
you've got 32 years and yourknowledge compared to mine is
well not comparable, but it'simportant just to get the right
(10:01):
information, sometimes to speakto someone who can guide you.
Really, I think.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Mike, that's incredibly important.
I have been to variousuniversities to speak to the
students, encourage them.
I have gone to some tointerview students to bring on
board with SEA and one of thethings we have found is
sometimes it's difficultbringing someone on straight out
of school because we know it'sgoing to be a long ramp up.
(10:28):
It's going to take time andrepetition, but they don't have
any bad habits either.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Where sometimes, when you hire someone that has been
in it 20 or 30 years, sometimesthere's some bad habits there,
or sometimes there's not badhabits, but you got to change
the way they do things to bemore in line with how you're
going to do or our company does.
So we embrace that bringingpeople on.
(10:57):
When I was president of IAAI,one of my major pushes was the
student part of our association,because when you look out the
IAAI annual conference or at ourpassion for what we do with a
younger generation and then putourselves at their disposal,
(11:31):
look, I am here to help you andopen the book completely and
share with them everything thatwe've learned, because they do
not need to make the samemistakes I made I've already
made them, so they don't need to.
They'll make plenty on their own, but they don't need to make
mine, and if I share with them,hopefully it'll get them to
(11:52):
where they want to be a littlequicker, because they don't have
to.
I've been around this for 47years now, so I made an awful
lot of mistakes and I canhopefully help them prevent them
from making some of those samemistakes.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Yeah, definitely.
I think, even picking up onwhat you said there about moving
, even when I've moved from onefirm to another firm, the basic
principles they should beexactly the same, but even some
of the wording gets well.
I don't like the way that youword that.
Well, that's kind ofindoctrinated from your previous
employer.
That's how you've been taughthow to do it, so I think it's
quite difficult to break out ofthat.
You mentioned the IWI,obviously, and you are the
(12:30):
ex-president, past president,and I know you've had massive
amount of input on 921, 1033,etc.
But we've had the recent 1321come out.
But what's the involvement inthat?
For those who don't know, howdoes the IWAI kind of set those
guides and standards?
How does it work?
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Well, those 1033, which says professional
qualifications for fireinvestigator, 921, which is the
guide for fire and explosioninvestigation, and now the new
document NFPA 1321 for standardof fire investigation units, all
of those are governed by theNational Fire Protection
Association, nfpa, which is aseparate entity from IAAI.
(13:11):
And now IAAI has been veryinvolved in those documents by
having representatives serve onthose committees.
I've been fortunate to havebeen a member of well, I'm a
life member of NFPA now, butI've been a member since 1984
and started with the 921Committee in 1991.
(13:31):
And the thing that makes theNFPA documents what they are is
the standards developmentprocess they follow.
The committees are very tightlygoverned.
No one category of member canhave more than 30%
representation on the committee,so no one category can get
(13:53):
control.
They call that balance.
Everything that goes in adocument has to receive it goes
in by consensus and in FPAconsensus means it received a
two-thirds vote.
So every change has to receivea two-thirds vote of the
committee to make it in.
But the documents are put outthere.
(14:13):
There is public input thatcomes in to change it and the
committee must act on all thepublic input and then that gets
published and then there is acomment period on the actions
the committee took on publicinput and then the committee
once again must review all ofthe comments.
Then the document is finished.
(14:33):
There is an appeal period.
Where someone who has submittedpublic input and submitted
comments doesn't like what thecommittee did, they can file an
appeal.
And submitted comments doesn'tlike what the committee did,
they can file an appeal and ifit's certified that will go
before the NFPA membership.
That happened on 13-21.
We finished and there was anappeal.
It's called a notice of intentto make a motion.
(14:55):
The submitter didn't like thecommittee's action so this past
June I had to go to the NFPA'sannual meeting and present the
document before the membershipand then defend the committee's
decision on the appeal and thenthe membership votes and they
(15:15):
decided with the committee thatrelease the document be
published and 1321 was justpublished back in August and
1321 was just published back inAugust.
So it's a very good process thatNFPA has to be open for public
inputs for changes and IAAI hashad a representative on these
(15:37):
committees since they started.
So IAAI NAFI has hadrepresentatives on the committee
Others.
Aai NAFI has hadrepresentatives on the committee
Others.
So it's a very open processwhich allows for the documents
to grow and improve.
921 is on a three-year cycle,so they're a new addition every
three years.
1033 is on a five-year cycle.
(15:58):
1321, being a standard will beon a five-year cycle, so it's a
very good process with lots ofinput, lots of review, to get
from the beginning to the endwhen a document is published.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Sure, I know like 1321 is a standard and 921 is a
guide.
So just take our listenersthrough.
What's the difference?
Just tell us, from your pointof view, what is the actual
difference between the standardand the guide.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Okay, mike, that's a really good question and I'm
going to answer that two ways.
I'm going to answer it with myNFPA hat on how NFPA
differentiates them.
Then I'm going to talk a littlebit about a port system, which
I know it's a little differentbetween us Yanks over here
across the pond and what youhave over in the UK From an NBA
(16:51):
standpoint.
It's pretty much a very simpledifference.
A standard like 1033, 1321 isrequired to have mandatory
language.
You will see terms like shalland must and they are very small
documents.
(17:11):
1033 is 26 pages.
I think 1321 is 30 pages,because the only thing that can
be in the text is mandatorylanguage.
Any explanation has to go inthe annex On a guide.
A guide cannot containmandatory language.
(17:33):
So you see words like shouldand may and the entire body of
the text is explanatory.
It contains the recommendations, suggestions.
So it not only talks about whatto do, but it provides guidance
on how to do.
It talks about what to do, butit provides guidance on how to
(17:59):
do it.
The guide of 921 talks about thescientific method, but with
each step there is specificguidance in what the steps mean
and how you carry them out.
So that's the big difference isthe mandatory language.
Now the second part of that andI'll use 921 as an example.
According to NFPA, 921 is aguide because it contains
non-mandatory language.
(18:19):
However, in the justice system,judges are using the term guide
and standard interchangeably.
They have referred to 921 as astandard of care, a gold
standard and various phraseslike that, and a lot of it ties
to that scientific method.
(18:40):
So when I speak and teacharound, one is what matters is
how the court views it.
So if they're viewing it as astandard, you might as well view
it as a standard also in yourmind.
But from a practical standpointit's that dividing line of
mandatory language versusnon-mandatory.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Yeah, sure, and I think, obviously to work, would
you I mean, this is just myimpression, if you like, but to
work in the United States as afire investigator?
You've got to know 921 very,very well and you will be held
up account.
You'll be compared against thatwhen giving testimony etc.
You'll be held in account interms of definitions, in terms
of some of the common languageand the practices, etc.
(19:24):
You would definitely be held upagainst that, wouldn't you?
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Absolutely.
One of the things I do I didthis at the UK conference is
when I'm getting ready to speakon them, I will take out a ruler
and I will hold it up and saywe use this to measure things.
The court system is using 921to measure something.
(19:50):
They're using it to UnitedStates.
Another reason it is used soextensively is in 1993, there
was a decision in a court calledDaubert and it addressed how
judges are the gatekeeper forexpert testimony and one of the
(20:12):
things that comes up when aninvestigator is planning to
testify is the methodology.
One judge stated that there'stwo questions regarding expert
testimony Did the expert use theright methodology and did he
use that methodology correctly?
(20:34):
Methodology and did he use thatmethodology correctly.
The right methodology means ithas been published, it's been
peer-reviewed, it's beengenerally accepted in the
industry.
That's where the scientificmethod out of 921 comes into
play.
The second part of that is youhave to demonstrate that you
used it properly.
It very much is the measuringstick, if you will, that an
(20:58):
investigator's investigationwill be compared to in the
justice system.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
Yeah, You've been involved for a long time.
So did you see?
I mean, our younger listenersprobably would just go hey,
there's 921, fantastic referencebook, guide etc.
Teach me pretty much all I needto know, apart from the
practical aspects and theexposure to actual, real scenes
etc.
You must have seen a massiveamount of change between 84.
When was the first one?
(21:25):
In the 80s, I think so now.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Yeah, the first edition of 921 came out in 1992.
It was 14 chapters and 119pages, okay.
And the 2024 edition that cameout the first part of this year
was 29 chapters and 500 pages.
Yes, there's been a huge changein 921 from where we began,
(21:52):
because I started before therewas 921.
And it was kind of a wild west.
There was nothing really tochallenge you with.
So I could go into court and Idid, I could testify to whatever
and they were kind of hard tocross-examine me because
basically it was because I saidit was and there wasn't anything
(22:15):
to say it wasn't.
And 921 changed all that andthe scientific method was in
that first edition.
I think the greatest change infire investigation has been the
scientific method and how itapplies to what we do.
And then, as you moved forwardover the decades with the
different additions, theadvances in science and research
(22:38):
has been a huge change Becausesome of the things we believed
and thought meant something.
Now science has said no, thatdoesn't mean what we thought it
meant, because there's beentesting and there's been
research and all of that.
I think one of the biggestchanges that we have seen
probably in the last 20 years isthe effects of ventilation.
(23:03):
As a firefighter I alwaysunderstood ventilation from the
standpoint of the fire isventing out the top of the door,
so we get down low, so we canget under it and let the fire
vent out.
And if we make entry andunderstood why there was more
damage around doors and windowsbecause the fire was venting out
, but from a fire investigationstandpoint, we never understood
(23:26):
the effects of ventilation onthe inside of the structure and
how it could create patternsbecause of the ventilation.
That realization changed how welook at fire patterns and the
science of fire investigation,and it caused us to look more to
the science, look more to theresearch.
(23:47):
There's been huge changes overthe last 30 plus years.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Sure, yeah, I was listening to I don't know if
you've had a chance, but I waslistening to In Focus Fire
Investigation with Scott andChastity and that's another
fantastic podcast and it reallystruck me.
I was listening to theliterally yesterday to the
latest episode and they wereScott was saying about how fire
investigation was more of an artthan a science and I think that
sums up really nicely is thatit's gone from purely because I
(24:12):
say Ipsy, whatever thatexpression is because I say so,
to actually okay, now I've gotto prove it, type thing.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Oh, absolutely, it was 100% the land of the Ipsy
Dixit expert.
It is so because I said it wasso.
Now we have moved from the artof fire investigation to the
science of a profession.
Now there is still art in fireinvestigation, but the art part
(24:41):
is the art of testimony how youtestify.
But the science of ourprofession is now what supports
our ability to testify.
So we moved from thatipsy-dixit, where there was
really no basis for our opinions, to now we are in a profession
(25:02):
that has a science basis for ouropinions.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
I think the thing that I've noticed as well just
in my short term with the 921,is that not only do things get
added as our knowledge increases, but things also get taken out.
Some of the myths haveobviously been taken out over
the years that when the earlyeditions were there in black and
white, and obviously, asthey've been disproved wrong,
they've been taken out.
But also things move around aswell.
(25:26):
Things have changed from onedifferent particular area to
another sort of area.
I know arc mapping wassomething that entirely got an
entire chapter.
It's not just about addinginformation, it's also about
moving and developing and takingthings out.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think the arc mapping isa good one because originally,
as part of the origin chapter,it was one of the big four.
I mean, we had fire dynamics,we had interviews, we had fire
patterns and we had art mapping.
Well, when art mapping wasoriginally gone, went in, it was
(26:03):
thought to be much bigger thanit was.
As we progressed we figured outthat the cluster of arts, one
art mapping, is thedocumentation of arc sites.
Well, with the goal that itwould help with the origin
determination, what we figuredout as we went forward was the
(26:24):
cluster of arc sites forms apattern.
It really became this needs togo into Chapter 6 on fire
patterns.
And then the arc mappingdiscussion that was in the cause
.
One of the big four moved up tobe included in patterns because
it talks about fire effects andfire damage, including that on
(26:48):
electrical conductors.
We learned more and there was abig discussion and debate on
that.
But when you look at an arc mapyou can see there is a pattern
to it.
So it really fit into thepattern.
So the more we learn, the moreresearch we learn, the more we
understand.
Okay, this is better suited atanother location because it fits
(27:10):
better.
Like I say, we've removed somethings over the years, and one
of the big things that wasaddressed in the 2011 edition
and it took a little while toget is the concept negative
corpus.
Well, I don't know where thephrase came from, but it was a
well-known fact back in my earlydays to hear an investigator go
(27:35):
.
I eliminated everything else.
Therefore, it's ours.
Okay, you have evidence ofthings.
It's not.
What is the evidence that saysit is?
Well, I've eliminated that.
Okay, I get that, but what'sthe evidence to support it?
So, when this change was made,the fire investigation community
about lost their mind and wedidn't really word it very well
(27:58):
to start with, but then we kindof got it sorted out.
So now it talks about theemphasis on the evidence to
support your opinion, whateverit is.
Yes, there's evidence over herethat I can point to that
eliminates something, but thisis the evidence I can point to
that supports the opinion thatthis was an incendiary fire.
(28:20):
Things like that have reallychanged as we've gone through
the process.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Yeah, and just an observation.
I think it's fantastic, randy,we haven't prompted this at all
in the sense of I didn't saywhat questions I was going to
really ask you or anything, so Ilove how you can just go in
2011, chapter 6.
It's fantastic you know thisdocument so well and you've
obviously been involved butabsolutely brilliant that you
can just wrap off your tonguecertain sections.
(28:46):
I was going to ask you what wasthe most controversial thing
that's come out of 921.
It's probably that was it.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
I would say that was definitely big and it was one of
those things that, because Iwas chairman of the committee
when this happened, I kind ofhad this giant target on my back
it was all my fault, but weknew this issue for a long time.
We couldn't figure out how toarticulate it into the document
(29:13):
and then we finally got it inthere and it really wasn't done
very well.
We didn't do it as well as itshould have been done and then
it took a couple of additions toget it together and I don't
know.
We did a podcast addressingthat as well.
Another more recent bigcontroversy and I was sure when
it went down too more recent bigcontroversy and I was chair
(29:37):
when it went down too, so I'vebeen the source of a lot of
trouble over the years was whenwe took out a chapter on fire
cause classification.
There was a huge confusion onfire cause versus fire cause
classification.
If I gave somebody a scenarioand said, okay, you've got a
fire on the stovetop and thefrying pan is there and the
(29:59):
grease is there and the burner'son high, what's the cause of
the fire?
And they would say, well,accidental.
I said accidental is not acause.
The cause is what's thecircumstances that brought the
fuel, the heat, the oxygentogether in such a way that we
have a fire.
The classification is the labelyou're going to put on that
cause after you determine thecause.
(30:20):
We were dealing with theconfusion there for that people
understanding cause versus theclassification.
The other issue we were havingis in the US they have a system
called INFERS, national FireReporting, so the reports are
(30:41):
all dropped down.
So you would have to click on adrop down on the classification
.
Well, it's got a whole list ofclassifications that we only
listed four.
So the classifications, and weonly listed four.
So the classifications weredifferent and classification
means different things indifferent locations.
It's an international document,so what we decided to do was to
(31:04):
take classifications out as itsown chapter.
We moved the discussion ofclassification into the cause
chapter, because the cause iswhat we're classifying, and then
we pointed them to resourcesthat talk about cause
classification so that if youneed to classify the fire cause,
(31:26):
here is resources to do that.
And again the fire investigationcommunity lost its mind because
now oh, 921 says we can'tclassify a fire cause.
No, we've never said that.
We've simply said if you needto classify the fire cause, here
is resources to do that, butyou have to determine the cause
(31:48):
first.
Then, if you need to, you put alabel on it, and I know
classification is reallyimportant for statistics.
The percentage of accidentalfires versus intentional fires
versus that was another bigcontroversy and once it got
explained I know fireinvestigators around the world
(32:10):
are pretty much the same Peoplewere really upset over something
that they had not read.
It was based really on rumorand speculation, and then what I
would do presentations on andsay this is why this is and, by
the way it didn't go lead it'shere.
(32:31):
Then it would be.
Oh well, that's not as bad aswe thought it was, but it took
that explanation to be able toget there.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
So, yeah, yeah, you know it's a process yeah, I was
gonna ask you how does it?
I mean, there's obviously theiwi podcast, which is a very
good podcast, is how I reallystarted to.
Really that's the first podcastin five years I ever listened
to and there's some really goodstuff on there.
But how does does themembership become?
Avoid those kind of rumors etcetera?
Is there workshops or is itjust coming to the conference
(33:01):
every year?
Or obviously, in the States,the IWI you being ex-president
it's a massive kind of body withindividual chapters in all 50
states.
So how do you manage that?
How does that work?
Does it get disseminated down?
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Yeah, Well, sometimes it really doesn't work very
well, but one of the things wehave IAA has done a good job at
is with CFI Trainer.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Oh yeah, fantastic.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
And I've been involved in several modules and
we did one on the negativecorpus issue that I mentioned
earlier and that addressed whatit is and what it's not, so that
helps get the information.
I do a lot of speaking atvarious chapter events.
(33:50):
That helps push it out, as wellas the IAAI at their conference
and other organizations such asthe National Association of
Fire Investigators.
They have a conference so theinformation gets shared but
sometimes it takes a while toget accepted, Even with 921, the
first edition was in 1992.
It really didn't get acceptedeven by IAAI until the 98 to
(34:13):
2001 editions, because here wasthis document that came out that
now is telling us how we'resupposed to do our job.
Well, you and I both know howmuch fire investigators, cops
and firemen love things thattell them what to do.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, there's nothing moreresistant than a cop or a
firefighter to changes there,really, because we've done it
this way and that good enoughyesterday, so why are we
changing today?
but yeah, absolutely and they'recomplaining about how it is now
yeah, exactly, yeah, fantasticlisten, I picked up something
(34:52):
there as well about.
There is obviously anothermassive.
I'm a member of nationalassociation of fire
investigators as well, so you'vebeen around long, randy, to
know kind of the history there.
I mean, I've been a member formany, many years but they seem
to be the quieter brother, ifyou like, of the IWAI.
They've got certifications thesame as the IWAI.
So I must get somebody on thecurrent president or somebody on
(35:13):
from NAFI.
But what's the history there?
Were they two separateorganizations?
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Do on from NAAFI.
But what's the history there?
Were they two separateorganizations?
Do you know the history?
Well, actually I do know someof it because I've been a member
of the National Association ofFire Investigators since the 80s
also, and I hold all three oftheir certifications as well.
My understanding and this goesback to the 40s and 50s.
Originally it's myunderstanding IAAI was going to
be mainly for public sector, andthe founder of MAFI, john
(35:52):
Kennedy, wanted some because hewas involved at the meeting when
IAAI was hatched and he feltthat there needed to be
something that was open toprivate sector also.
So he started the NationalAssociation of Fire
Investigators.
So they were kind of twoentities.
(36:13):
I've described them as bothorganizations are driving down
the same interstate highway indifferent lanes at different
places.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
They both have the same ultimate goal, I believe to
provide training andcertifications to the fire
investigation community aroundthe world.
They just approach themdifferently.
Sure, the IAAI their officersare elected.
As the president, I served oneyear as president.
Nafi does not have an electedleadership.
(36:48):
Okay, John Kennedy started it.
His son, Patrick Kennedy, whowas a very dear friend of mine,
headed it up for a very longtime, and they have a board of
governors which is the governingbody, and then they have a
board of directors which kind ofsubservient to the board of
governors, and now Pat passedaway in 2017.
(37:11):
And his daughter, CatherineKennedy Smith, is now the
chairman of the board and theyhave a couple of conferences a
year.
They don't have chapters.
Iaai has chapters.
There's a difference.
The certifications havedifferent qualifications and
criteria to be certified.
They both require testing.
(37:32):
They both require points.
The points are different.
How you accumulate the points,how you account for the points
are different.
How you accumulate the points,how you account for the points
are different.
Iaai, we're over 11,000 membersworldwide now.
I believe the last I heard fromNAFI they were in the
8,000-member category.
I would say IAAI is a morecohesive organization because of
(37:57):
our chapters and electedleadership, whereas BFI is a
whole organization that's notbroken up by chapters.
Gotcha, you don't sometimeshave that bond that you have
with the individual chaptersaround, because IAAI would have
83 chapters now around the world.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
Sorry, I mean, I completely put you on the spot
there.
So sorry about that, randy, butyeah, I was just more
interested.
Sometimes these questions cometo me and I just think, oh well,
you'll definitely know thehistory.
But, like you say, I think abit like Yanks and Brits, we're
similar but slightly different.
Same goals, same kind ofoutlook really, but yeah,
slightly different.
But yeah, as I say, I'm justconscious.
I've had a lot of people onfrom IWI, and I refer to IWI and
(38:42):
UK AFI quite a lot Because, asyou say, we don't have a NAFI
contingent in the UK becausethey don't have the chapter.
So I guess that makes sense.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Now the vice president of NAFI is Mick
Beasley, who is in the UK.
Speaker 1 (38:59):
Yeah, okay, good.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
And he's been the vice president for a very long
time.
Okay, and I really do believethat going down the highway in
different lanes at differentplaces along, the route really
kind of, because they both havethe same goal.
Ultimately, it's just how theygo about doing.
It is different.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
I was actually surprised how many members they
had.
That shocked me actually,because I thought it would be
less.
It would be a lot less, I don'tknow.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
It just seemed quieter, I guess, but anyway,
and I think a lot of that tiesback to the chapters.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
With the chapters.
That gives the IWAI footprintsin a lot more places.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
That's why you may have more.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
Yeah, I mean you see, obviously I don't know you
correct me if I'm wrong, but isthere a chapter in every state
in the US?
Speaker 2 (39:48):
There's a chapter in every state in the US, and then
we've got the UK chapter andwe've got the European chapter,
that one in Ireland.
I mean there's a pretty bigfootprint in Europe.
The Central and South Americais really a growing area.
The Spanish-speaking world isreally huge.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
Yeah, and Australia, they just about have their
annual.
I think it might have happenedor it's about to happen.
Next week, their Australianconference.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
Yeah, I mean because you've got a couple of chapters
in Australia plus New Zealandnext door, and then you've got
the African chapter.
So yeah, there's a lot going on.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
Yeah, I like to try and my intention is to try and
get as many differentnationalities on to understand.
I think we pretty much do avery similar thing across the
world.
There might be some slightidiosyncrasies in each country,
but we pretty much do.
From a, you can be a fireinvestigator in Africa as well
as you can in Singapore.
Speaker 2 (40:47):
Yeah, I mean the fire is physics and science-based.
I'm pretty sure the science isthe same in the UK as it is in
the US.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
Yeah, just with more tea.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
Yeah, you guys take more breaks and have more tea.
The big thing that we see.
There's two really big areas.
One is electrical.
The electrical systems aredifferent around the world.
Yeah, definitely yeah,electricity is still the same,
but the systems are different.
And then, of course, the legalsystem is different all over the
(41:23):
world.
There are some where down inSouth America where the
investigator never reallytestifies.
He provides a report to thecourt and that is the testimony
testimony.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
Yeah, single sort of single expert, the sort of kind
of francophile kind of systemwhere one expert, one report and
the judge decides for himselfor other than the adversarial
kind of judge defense versusprosecution.
But yeah, yeah, fantastic,really interested.
So, unfortunately, randy, as Iknew we would, we could probably
do a four-hour podcast, butwe're starting to run out of
time unfortunately.
But what's next for you?
Mean, you had the technicaltraining at SEA and are you
(42:02):
doing much on that?
Speaker 2 (42:03):
Yes, I'm the director of technical training, which
really this kind of fits in withmy passion.
I'm responsible for thetraining of new engineers, new
investigators.
We bring them in, we put themthrough a training program.
We have what we call an expertboot camp that all new people go
through and we do mockscenarios and the ramp up
(42:24):
depends on the individual.
So that's really what a lot ofmy focus is.
I still handle cases, but notas many anymore because I'm
pretty well tied up with thetraining of the new staff and
just trying to help them movedown the road toward being the
best forensic expert they can be.
Speaker 1 (42:42):
Yeah, fantastic, and I mean with your experience and
knowledge and just your years ofexposure as well, right from
the beginning, from like 17, 18years old.
So, wow, it must be great tohave a resource like you in that
sort of organization.
I expect your engineers arevery good.
Is there anything else wehaven't covered, randy, that you
wanted to cover today?
(43:02):
I mean, as I say, we'llprobably get you on again
because there's so much to talkabout, but is there anything
before we sort of wrap it up?
Speaker 2 (43:08):
Mike, I just really appreciate people like yourself
and others that are doing thesepodcasts to get information out
there.
You mentioned earlier about howdo you get information out when
something is going on, and inthe past the only way we could
was, in person, go to aconference and speak, and then
(43:30):
those select few that are atthat conference are the only
ones that gets it and then it'sup to them to go back and share
it, whereas things like whatyou're doing and others are
doing with these podcasts.
It provides the opportunity forinformation to be shared around
the world so that people aregetting exposed to it.
I think this is one of thegreatest things going right now
(43:52):
to be able to share, and one ofmy mantras the theme of my
speech when I was sworn in aspresident was rise up together,
strive for excellence, and Ithink your podcast and others
allow us to rise up together inpursuit of the goal of being
excellent.
So I really appreciate whatyou're doing.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
Fantastic.
Well, thanks so, so much forthat.
I mean, it means a great deal,honestly, Jenna, it came from me
just looking for a podcast formy own education because, you
only know, I've been around fora long time in the crime scene
world and, to a certain extent,with the fire scene, but I
wanted to be compared to some ofthe people that I'd worked with
.
I was thinking, oh Christ,they're really good.
They're really good at whatthey do.
(44:34):
How do I get better when you'redriving?
And I would drive many hoursfrom fire scene to a fire scene.
I was desperate for someknowledge, as I was, just
because it's wasted time.
Driving is just wasted time,isn't it?
That's how I see it.
And I was thinking, so I'dlisten to podcasts, I'd listen
to the IWI podcast and then Ithink, well, where's the next
one?
And that's really whatgenerated the sense of there
(44:54):
must be other people.
I know James Acott, who, I addon, I know he listens to me when
he's driving from scene toscene.
Pete Mansey listens to me whenhe's driving from scene to scene
.
So I think the driving aspectis a big factor.
But that's certainly why Istarted it, and just for me to
be a better fire investigatorand I've learned so much just
from having these conversations.
It only sort of leaves mereally, randy, to say thanks so
(45:16):
much for coming on.
I really appreciate it andthanks for your time.
I know we got together lastweek just for a quick make sure
that we were good.
Yeah, so fantastic.
Thanks very much for coming on.
Speaker 2 (45:24):
Glad to Anytime Happy to be here.
Yeah, smashing.
Speaker 1 (45:28):
All right, thanks so much.
You take care.
You grab a coffee and I'll goand grab some tea.
Sounds admire.
Thank you, all right, take care, thanks, randy.
Hey, thank you for listening tocsi on fire.
Please don't forget to like,subscribe and suggest future
topics on our web page.
Remember factor non-verbal.
(45:49):
Take care, good hunting.
I hope to see you on the nextone.
Cheers.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.