Unconfirmed accelerants

Fire investigation is arguably one of the most difficult areas of investigation. The fire scene and available evidence has often been burnt, melted, smoke-stained, water-damaged and trampled on, but the fire investigator still has to make important distinctions between whether a fire was accidental or deliberate (arson). Modern fire investigations often rely on portable electronic detectors to identify ignitable liquid residue (ILR), or accelerant detection canines (ADCs), trained on a number of target substances. An analysis of cases from England and Wales, the United States of America (USA) and Canada demonstrates that sophisticated admissibility frameworks have not been effective in rejecting opinion testimony given by investigators and dog handlers that unconfirmed dog alerts where laboratory tests were negative provided proof of arson. This is problematic and controversial, and the authors conclude that such testimony is not compatible with modern forensic or scientific standards and should not be admitted into courts

Accidental · Arson · Computer security · Criminology · Fire investigation · Flammable liquid · Forensic engineering · Waste management · Computer Science · Engineering · Forensic and Genetic Research · Forensic Fingerprint Detection Methods · Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis · History · Psychology

• Contextual information and cognitive bias in the forensic investigation of fatal fires

  Open Access•Neil Richard Morling, Marika Linnéa Henneberg•International journal of law,…•2020

  Add to list

• Expert Evidence After Daubert

  Open Access•Michael J Saks, David L Faigman•Annual Review of Law and Social…•2005

  Add to list