Fire Investigation - Research Paper Example

? Fire Investigation: Collection and Preservation of Arson Evidence Franziska Philipp Palm Beach College Fire Investigation: Collection and Preservation of Arson Evidence Introduction Fire investigation aims to establish the cause and origin of fire related occurrences (Lee and Harris, 2000). Such investigations would entail a systematic approach and possessing basic fire science knowledge. According to forensic disciplines, fire investigations are used to determine whether there were crime intentions despite the fact that fire often destroys crucial evidence initially. There are many types of investigations that are susceptible to prejudgment. However, fires are destructive in nature, consuming evidence as it continues to burn as noted by Diane (1993). The evidence is further tainted by activities from the fire service agencies whose goal is protection of property. In addition to this, press and curious individuals that are attracted to the fire scenes further complicate the investigations. Fire investigations resemble picture puzzles. Each person has only one piece but no one has a whole picture. As such, it is up to the investigator to collect enough evidence to solve the puzzle (Lee and Harris, 2000). As soon as the crime scene has been comprehensively investigated and documented, immediately the collection process normally begins. In most cases, the collection process normally starts with collecting the most fragile and easily lost evidence (Diane, 1993). Special handling is required when dealing with movable objects like photographs enabling the collection to proceed in a logical manner. Most of the evidence items are collected in simple items like papers packets, bags and envelopes (Lee and Harris, 2000). The liquid evidence may be transported in leak-proof containers that are non-breakable. In addition, dry powder in large quantities is usually collected and stored in tight airbags. Wet and moist evidence like blood and plants are collected and transported in plastic containers. This is done as a way of preventing contamination of other arson evidence. As soon as the wet evidence is in a secure location, whether it was packed in paper or plastic bags, it must be removed and given time to dry. As soon as it dries, it should be repackaged in a dry and new paper container. There is a warning that concerns the handling of wet evidence stating that the arson evidence must not be packed in paper and plastic containers longer than two hours (Soule, 2008). This is due to the fact that moisture accelerates growth of microorganisms that can destroy the evidence hence changing it. During collection of evidence, any items that may cross contaminated must be packed separately (Lee and Harris, 2000). In addition, all the containers must be closed and secured as a preventive measure of mixing up the evidence during transportation. Each of the collecting bags must contain certain information as noted by Bonny (2003). For example, the initials of the person collecting should be present, time and date of collection, location and full description of the evidence found and finally the agency name that is head of investigations including their file number. Considering forensic discipline, each form of evidence does have its specific value during investigations. In the mind of an investigator, the type of evidence to gather matters (Schaaf, 1977). For example, during investigations, an investigator should be more focused on collecting fingerprints on the fire debris as opposed to collecting fibers on clothing. Fingerprint evidence can act as an accurate pointer that a person was involved in a particular crime. However, in absence of fingerprints, fibers found in a person’s clothing act as first hand evidence (Soule, 2008). Subsequently, it is also a very wise initiative to collect more evidence from all areas as opposed to enough evidence. After all, an investigator has access to crime scene once before all the evidence is destroyed. However, not all evidence can be collected at the scene since it was destroyed. Examples of the collectable evidence include accelerants, chemical devices like road flares and propellants, electronic devices and paper and trash. When flammable liquids are left behind like gasoline and kerosene, an investigator may conclude that a liquid accelerant was used for the arson (Bonny, 2003). The accelerant remains are normally detected by tracing the origin point or using sniffing dogs well known as canine use. It is later packed in air tight containers. Some of the containers used to hold the evidence include new metal cans that are airtight because old cans might be rusty. Glass jars are also used as containers. However, they should not contain rubber or glued liners as these may interfere with the final results. There should also be special airtight plastic evidence bags that are properly sealed (Bonny, 2003). Various Arson evidences Fingerprints include palm and foot prints. This is viewed as the best evidence that can vindicate an individual to crime committed. The collection of fingerprints normally requires few materials making it an ideal initiative. All the unmovable items are processed by black or magnetic and gray powder at the crime scene. As such, all the small and transportable items are packed in envelopes or small bags to be processed later in the laboratory. Due to this packing and moving, investigators normally forget to collect fingerprints at the crime scene. As such, collecting fingerprints should always be top priority for investigators as opposed to dealing with the movable and unmovable evidence. Broken Fingernails found at the scene of crime should be placed in packets whether paper or envelope. However, such evidence as this is very valuable because it can tie the criminal many months later after the crime was committed since fingernails can be preserved for a long time (Lee & Harris, 2000). As such, investigators normally pursue this kind of evidence. Liquid accelerants like petroleum and petrol normally leave half burnt papers and documents. As such, certain information like the handwriting and original manufacturer of the documents is retrieved. This documents and paper residues are known as Questioned documents (Lee and Harris, 2000). In cases where certain handwriting is traced to certain individuals, they normally solve the case. In addition, the Questioned documents can be processed to find traces of fingerprints. All the evidence that classifies as Questioned documents is collected and preserved in paper containers. In addition, when carpet fibers or synthetics are found at the scene of crime, the arson act may be petroleum based (Lee and Harris, 2000). The investigator’s work is now to find the criminal. When dealing with blood and body fluids, the DNA analysis that match a suspects blood to the sample at the crime scene, this probably acts as the most accurate method of solving arson crimes (Lee and Harris, 2000). Evidence such as dried blood stains, the method of collection should be done in such a careful manner. Body fluids and blood should be placed in plastic bags or envelopes. However when the object that contained the blood stains cannot be transported, an investigator may use fingerprint tape handling it as fingerprint evidence. One can then scrape the stain into a bag or paper packet. The investigator can opt to absorb the stain into moistened threads with distilled water. However, the threads must completely dry before one can pack the evidence. During transportation, care must be observed in order to prevent contamination as noted by Lee and Harris (2000). The threads must not stay in the plastic bag for more than two hours. Once secure, threads have to be removed and given time to dry. After drying, they are then repacked inside paper packet and wrapped up by placing it in an envelope. They are then placed separately to prevent cross contamination. (Diane, 1993). When dealing with shoeprints and tire tracks, the method of collection differs. Before commencing the collection, photographs are made using rulers, tripods and levels. The investigator should take the picture at an angle of 45 degrees from the crime surface (Lee and Harris, 2000). To enhance better results, the camera flash is used. During photography, the flash could also be used to side light the hardened flat surfaces. In addition, shoeprint photographs taken on hard surfaces can sometimes be retrieved the same way as fingerprint evidence. This is achieved through dusting prints on the supposed surfaces by use of an electrostatic dust print lifter. At the crime scene, the investigator may try and get the actual size of the shoe that the criminal used. This is achieved through the use of casts, made using dental stones. Once the cast is hardened, it is packed inside a paper packet and transported to the laboratory (Parson, 2010). Conclusion In conclusion, careful and thorough investigations are the key elements ensuring that potential physical evidence is not destroyed and potential witnesses are also not overlooked. A lot of these fires may be accidental in nature like caused by faulty electrical circuits and defective equipment. For example, car fires originate from faulty fuel lines as a result of spontaneous combustion. However, some fires are not accidental and are regarded as a crime globally. For example, when Arson occurs, this is viewed as a crime launching fire investigations. Arson is viewed as a crime because this is intentional and malicious igniting fire to various items like personal structures and wild land areas like forests. Due to this, it is distinguished from other accidental causes like spontaneous combustion as well as natural wildfires. Few of the things that investigators search for when they rummage through an area that has been maliciously burned are evidences to prove that Arson occurred. For example, fire debris assist in analysis of the crime. References Bonny C. (2003, March 7) Popular Science. Arson evidence. Published by Bonnier Corporation, s112, Vol. 262, No. 6. Diane A. (1993). Crime Scene and Evidence Collection Handbook: Brooklyn, NY: DIANE Publishing, Lee C. and Harris A. (2000) Physical evidence in forensic science. Philadelphia, PA: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Parsons W. (2010) Albany law journal: Weed, Parsons & Co., Volume 58, 10-33. Schaaf D. (1977, April 3) Orange Coast Magazine. Arson In Orange County: Published by Emmis Communications, 60, Vol. 3, No. 4. Soule D. (2008) The Central law journal, Soule: Thomas & Wentworth Volumes 548-566 of American periodical series, 1850-1900, 63-64. Read More