Search

The author, who since graduation from the Chinese Central Police College in 1941 has been a member of the Chinese Police Services under the Nationalist regime, has just received a degree of Master of Science in Public Administration from the University of Southern California. He first pursued studies in this country at San Jose State College where he received an A. B. degree in police administration in 1948. His present article is based upon his thesis for his M. S. degree and describes administrative problems of arson investigation in representative U. S. cities.-EDITOR.

The author, a Special Agent with the Mutual Investigation Bureau, Chicago, works in close cooperation with fire and police authorities in investigating fires of suspicious origin, explosions, arson, and related crimes. Drawing upon this experience he has prepared his present article dealing with the use of photography in such investigations. John Kennedy is a Lt. Commander, USNR, Intelligence Division, and has prepared a manual on arson investigations which is now used by the Navy. He has published other articles on the subject and lectured at various schools and seminars on aspects of arson investigation.-EDITOR.

The author is a special agent for the Mutual Investigation Bureau, Chicago, Illinois. He is a graduate of both the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Law, Tulane University, and has also taken special courses in police administration at Michigan State College. In 1953 Mr. Hopper was a guest lecturer at the Annual Arson Seminar held at Purdue University and in November appeared on the Arson Seminar program at the University of South Carolina, where he discussed the same subject as he is now writing upon.-EDITOR.

Donald Doud is an Examiner of Questioned Documents who is associated with John F. Tyrrell in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He has been a lecturer on various training programs for investigators, prosecutors, and attorneys at universities in the mid west, and his present paper is based upon his lecture given at the 7th Annual Arson Investigators Training Course at Purdue University. Mr. Doud is a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners and has participated in various programs of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences where he has also read a paper on this subject.-EDITOR.

The author is a special agent of the National Board of Fire Underwriters, Detroit, Michigan. He is a former member of the Canadian Mounted Police and the Fire Underwriters Investigation Bureau of Canada and has specialized for over eighteen years in problems of arson investigation. Mr. Wakefield is a member of the International Association of Arson Investigators and former director. This paper was presented at the 10th Annual Seminar and Training Course in Arson Investigation, Purdue University.-EDITOR.

Michael H. Bagot is a member of the Louisiana State Bar and attorney for the Louisiana Department of State Fire Marshal. He is Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Louisiana State Fireman's Association and a former lecturer at both Tulane and Xavier Universities. Mr. Bagot, who has participated in several arson and fire prevention conferences, presented this paper at the Third Annual Arson and Fire Prevention Conference which was recently held in New Orleans.-EDITOR.

This paper was presented at the Tenth (1954) Seminar in Arson Investigation, Purdue University. Its author, Joseph E. Lockwood, is District Fire Marshal, Eighth Naval District, New Orleans. Since 1924 he has been continuously active in the fields of fire fighting, fire protection, and arson investigation. In 1942 after 18 years service with the Plainfield, N. J., Fire Department, he was assigned duty with the U. S. Naval Intelligence as an arson investigator. After the war (1946) he assumed civilian status as Fire Marshal, U. S. Navy Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Va., and in 1950 was transferred to his present civilian assignment.-EDITOR.

William H. Hopper is a special agent for the Mutual Investigation Bureau, Chicago, and a graduate of the College of Arts and Science and the School of Law, Tulane University. He has also pursued special studies in police administration at Michigan State College. An earlier paper of his, "Circumstantial Aspects of Arson" appeared in this Journal, and in addition to extensive work in the investigation of these problems, Mr. Hopper has appeared on numerous arson training programs held in the middle west and southern United States.-EDITOR.

The author is president of General Investigations Inc., Chicago and has had extensive experience in the field of arson investigation. Prior to assuming his present position in April of 1956 he was a special agent with the Mutual Investigation Bureau, Chicago. He has lectured on various arson investigation programs during the last ten years and has written extensively on problems arising out of this type of investigation. His present paper is based upon a presentation given at the Fourth Annual Short Course for Arson Investigators, Ohio State University.-EDIToR.

The author recently received the degree of Master of Laws from the Tulane University of Louisiana, College of Law. In connection with his work toward this degree, Mr. Hoyek prepared a thesis on "Scientific Investigation and Medico-Legal Aspects of Pyromania," and his present article is based upon the concluding chapter of this thesis. Mr. Hoyek is now lecturing on Sociology at the American University of Beirut, the Beirut College for Women, and the Lebanese University.-EDITOR.

The author holds a degree of Master of Science in Public Administration from the University of Southern California and is a graduate of the Chinese Central Police College and San Jose State College. At the present time he is pursuing graduate studies at American University, Washington, D. C. This is the concluding portion of his study on arson investigation which is based upon his thesis prepared at the University of Southern California.-EDITOR.

Joseph D. Nicol, M.S., is Superintendent, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, State of Illinois, Springfield. Much of the research for this article was prepared while Mr. Nicol was a member of the faculty of the School of Police Administration and Public Safety, Michigan State University. He had previously served as Director of the Dade County Crime Laboratory, and for a number of years has been an Associate Editor of this Journal in charge of the Police Science Technical Abstracts and Notes section. Lee Overley is Chief of the Lansing Township Fire Department, Michigan, a member of the International Association of Arson Investigators, Michigan State Fire Chiefs Association and a past-president of the Alert Firemen's Association of Central Michigan.-EDITOR.

J. W. Brackett, Jr. is a member of the staff of the Laboratory of Criminalistics, Office of the District Attorney, San Jose, California, and has previously contributed to this Journal. The material discussed in this article has been presented at the November, 1954, meeting of the California Association of Criminalists, and subsequently at the Criminalistic Section meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Mr. Brackett is a member of California Association of Criminalists.-EDrTOR.

Detective Lieutenant Glenn D. Bennett is the Commanding Officer of the Arson Squad, Detroit Police and Fire Department. Lieutenant Bennett has been a member of the Detroit Police Department for better than 15 years and was transferred to the Arson Bureau in 1947. He assumed his present command in 1952. This article is a condensation of a lecture given at the 1953 Seminar in Arson Detection and Investigation, Purdue University.-EDITOR.

The crime of arson is rather singular in nature as to the physical evidence usually found during investigation. The physical evidence at the scene is often destroyed by the fire, but not always. Any detected materials related to the crime can often speak very strikingly and forcefully with the aid of laboratory studies thereon. As a review of the field of evidence in law, we meet the classification of (1) testimonial evidence and (2) physical evidence. Under the first class fall those statements of witnesses and suspects, which may or may not be reduced to writing. The second class, namely, physical evidence refers to those material things we can see, feel, smell, and taste. Fuels, containers, metal parts of an incendiary contraption, partially burned wood, tire tracks, etc., are examples of physical evidence the arson investigator may encoutner. The witness may be examined and cross examined to test his accuracy and veracity at the trial. Physical evidence can speak rather fluently and convincingly for itself if it is competently handledfrom scene to trial. Technical findings obtained by processing of this evidence are presented as expert testimony, and therefore as advisory aid to the court and jury at the trial. In all criminal cases including arson, the law requires careful scrutiny of the evidence offered in order to safeguard the rights of the defendant. This is to make certain that it is competent, and sheds some light on the question at bar, namely, the guilt or innocence of the defendant. These safeguards are not tricks, nor red tape, nor stumbling blocks for the prosecution, but safeguards that you, too, as a defendant would want to see observed. You, as a defendant, would certainly want to see negligence, gross carelessness, and possibility of fraud ruled out when some object was introduced against you as evidence at your trial. The law requires such safeguards for all defendants by requiring that certain basic rules must be met. These may be summarily listed as follows: 1. Is the object related to the crime? 2. Was its authenticity and competence maintained from scene to trial? 3. Was it competently examined? 4. Are the results competently and properly presented and interpreted? Three general points arise in connection with admitting into evidence any laboratory findings made on objects secured during the investigation: 1. Admissibility of the object.

William E. Kirwan is Director of the Scientific Laboratory, New York State Police, Albany. A graduate of Fordham University, he was first appointed to the Laboratory Staff in 1937 and to his present position in 1941. This article is a condensation of a lecture given at the Eighth Annual Seminar in Arson Detection and Investigation, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, which introduced the New York State Troopers' film "Medico-Legal Autopsy."-EDITOR.

John J. Savage is a Special Agent for the National Board of Fire Underwriters, with his headquarters in St. Petersburg, Florida. He is a member of the International Association of Arson Investigators, of the Kentucky State Bar Association, and the Society of Former Agents of the F.B.I. His present article is based upon a paper presented at the Second Annual Seminar for Arson Investigators held at the University of Florida. In addition to appearing on this program Mr. Savage has also participated in Arson Seminars at Purdue University, at the University of Kentucky, and at Tennessee State University-EDITOR

Major T. F. Martin, Commandant, Pennsylvania State Police Training School, has during his forty years of service supervised the training of approximately three thousand policeman-state, municipal, military, and auxiliary. He is the author of a book, Criminal Evidence Digest for the Policeman, and was co-author with Sgt. Priar in an article, "Searching and Disarming Criminals," which appeared in this Journal. First Sergeant L. L. Priar has been a member of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Pennsylvania State Police for the past twenty-three years. For 18 years he has served as an arson investigator and fire preventionist. He has attended and lectured at Purdue University's Arson Seminar and is a Past President of the International Association of Arson Investigators.-EDITOR.

This paper was presented at the Arson Investigation Course, University of Southern California, School of Public Administration, where the author is an instructor for this course. He has served with the Los Angeles Fire Department since 1936 and with the Arson Bureau since 1938 and for the last three years has been in charge of the bureau. His instruction work in the field of arson investigation has included appearances at the 9th and 10th Purdue University Arson Seminars and the first arson seminar which was held by the University of California at Berkeley.-EDIToR.

Arson is a peculiar crime. It is committed covertly and in secrecy, and consequently, the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence are problems to be solved. A conviction, if possible, is generally the result of an accumulation of numerous bits of circumstantial evidence. The prosecuting attorney, of necessity, is impelled to offer evidence bordering on the imaginary line which separates the admissible from the inadmissible. Now for a moment let us consider the old common law crime of arson which consisted of the wilful and malicious burning of the house or outhouse of another man. It could not be committed by burning an unoccupied dwelling. While the house had to be occupied, it was not necessary that the occupant be in the building at the time of the fire. The crime also included setting fire to any outhouses which were used in connection with the dwelling and which were located close enough so that the flames would endanger the occupants of the dwelling. The crime was against the security of the home and not against property and, therefore, the occupant could not commit the crime by burning the house in which he lived. It is easy to see that arson at common law was confined to very narrow limits. Other burnings were punishable, not as arson, but as high misdemeanors. To remedy the inadequacies of the common law, the legislatures of the various states gradually began to extend and broaden the definition of the crime, until today it covers all kinds of buildings and structures, even including personal property. Now the crime of arson includes the burning of the one's own property, whereas, at common law, it was limited to the burning of the dwelling house occupied by another person. While the legislative enactments in some states were adequate, in others they fell short. The Model Arson Law was designed not only to bring about uniformity but to correct the deficiencies of the common law and the statutory laws. As will be seen later, the Model Law covers practically any intentional burning that can occur and makes it much easier than before to convict the arsonist. At the present time, all states are operating under this law, with the exception of Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Washington.

Detective Inspector Glenn D. Bennett has been in charge of the Detroit Police and Fire Department, Arson Bureau, for the past eleven years and a member of the police departments for over twenty. He is a graduate in law of the University of Detroit and a member of the Michigan State Bar Association; of the Committee on Arson, International Association of Chiefs of Police; of the Committee on Arson, National Fire Protection Association; and President, International Association of Arson Investigators. His present paper was presented at the 12th Annual Seminar on Arson Detection and Investigation, Purdue University and will be repeated at the 5th Annual Louisiana Arson and Fire Prevention Conference in July-EDITOR.