Cases/Projects

For Technical Investigations, We are retained in order to technically determine what occurred, how the loss, injury or wrongful death could have been avoided and who or what was at fault.

Therefore, we have listed below a number of the Cases that Fire Reconstruction Consultants, Inc. has worked on over the years to provide you with examples of the diversity of our investigations. It is important to note, that the Origin and Cause of these incidents, may have been a 3 Inch Nail, a Defective Product, Simple Human Error, Negligence, or perhaps Criminal Arson and/or many other unique situations or occurrences.

 

Alleged Apartment Arson Murder

This case of an alleged First Degree Arson Murder came to Fire Reconstruction Consultants, Inc. from

Christopher E. Yeazell, Attorney
Then: Assistant Public Defender
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida
Clearwater, FL

"During the course of the past 15 years I have had the opportunity to work with dozens of criminal investigators and expert witnesses. I can state with confidence that Mr. Godfrey's dedication, attention to detail and over all skill exceeds that of just about any other investigator/expert witness that I have worked with while practicing as a criminal defense attorney."

Mr. Godfrey and I worked together on a First Degree Murder Case that I had been appointed to nearly a year after the incident occurred. The crime scene had long since been destroyed along with any evidence pertinent to the defense. Fortunately, due to the expertise of Mr. Godfrey, using photographs, architectural drawings, survey and other public records we were able to re-create the scene. Mr. Godfrey's re-creation of the scene along with his knowledge of arson investigation, flame vector analysis, fire science and burn pattern analysis ultimately led to a factual determination that the fire that caused the death in this alleged First Degree Arson Murder was in fact not an arson. After ten days in trial and Mr. Godfrey's expert testimony the Jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY which was one of only two or three not guilty verdicts on a First Degree Murder in Pinellas County, Florida in the past twenty years.

I have no doubt that without the dedication and skill of Mr. Godfrey, who took a very personal interest in the case, this result would have been very difficult if not impossible to achieve.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Arson and First Degree Murder. She spent two and one half years in the county jail awaiting trial.

ALLEGATION

In order to kill her abusive boyfriend it was alleged that the defendant poured an ignitable liquid on areas of the floor. She is then alleged to have ignited the material on the steps leading upstairs to their apartment and running down the stairs and across the street, completely nude to a friend's house to report the apartment on fire. Her dog also died in the fire and she left all of her clothes, her pocket book with all of her money, identification, etc. Using an Arson Detection Canine, fifteen samples were taken from the apartment for chemical testing. Thirteen were documented by photographs showing the general location of each sample and were marked in blue on the floor plan. The other two were never photographed nor were the locations ever documented in any manner. There was never any photographs taken showing exactly - what - was placed in the evidence cans for testing, nor were there any measurements taken documenting the exact location of the various samples. Of the fifteen samples tested only sample number six was identified as containing a Class Three Ignitable Liquid. The local police crime laboratory never tried to identify the exact substance in sample number six (Class Three Ignitable: Is a class - made - up of such diverse compounds as kerosene, charcoal lighter fluid, insecticides, mineral sprits and the natural decomposition by products of many plastics and foam rubber products.) There were also some two hundred plus photographs taken of the scene and deceased by either the fire department or police department.

FACTS DEVELOPED EARLY DURING OUR INVESTIGATION

The defendant and her boyfriend had been out celebrating her birthday at several bars. They returned to the apartment around 10:00 PM. He was tired and went to bed and she stayed up to watch television in the living room until 10:30 or 10:45 PM. At that time she went to bed. She had been lying and sitting on the couch located along the south wall of the living room with her head toward the west wall and smoked some cigarettes while watching television.

At approximately 12:37 AM she awoke in the bedroom feeling like she was choking, only to find smoke just above her face as she lay on her back on the bed. She woke up her boyfriend, with difficulty, telling him the apartment was on fire, got up and ran for the front door. As she crossed through the living room bent over so she could see where she was going, she saw a red glow to her left and felt heat on the left side of her face and head. The hair on the left side of her head was singed. She went out the front door, leaving it open, down the stairs and across the street to her friend's house, woke her friend and her friend's husband and he called the fire department at 12:42 AM.

Within seconds after she left the apartment door open, the living room flashed over, trapping her boyfriend and dog just inside the entrance to the bedroom where they both expired. Autopsy reports indicate that her boyfriend had an extremely enlarged heart and probably died from stress. There was little to no smoke or soot in his esophagus and lungs indicating that he did not die from smoke inhalation even though he had an elevated carbon monoxide level in his blood.

Results of our analysis indicated that the fire started on the west end of the living room sofa where a distinct incubation hole was found in the cushions indicating an accidental fire with a single origin.

 

 

Over 25 Yacht Fire Cases for TLDallas

In Yacht Fire Cases, "I trust Walt to tell me how it is and be able to answer questions in detail about his findings. That's the mark of a good expert, not just an expert. It's as my grandfather used to say, there are many experts, (especially in the US!!) but not many good ones." On the case immediately below, regarding the "Virgin Islands Nightclub and Vessel Fire", Mark said "When Walt and I discussed his initial findings, as always he had found the origin and cause of the fire. Walt is the best in his field."

Alexander Mark Thomas LLB
Director & Marine Claims Manager
Osprey Special Risks Limited
Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) part of the Munich Re group

 

 

Virgin Islands NightClub/Vessel Fire

A Nail Tells the Tale. It wasn't a Needle in the Haystack, but the same intensive search was required to find that it was a Nail, that caused electrical wiring to fail.

ASSIGNMENT

Fire Reconstruction Consultants, Inc., was assigned in order to conduct an investigation to determine the origin and cause of the fire that damaged the captioned structure and vessel (not shown).

DETAILS

Present during the investigation were Virgin Islands Police, Fire & Rescue and Fire Reconstruction Consultants personnel. The investigation was conducted in accordance with standards set forth in NFPA 921, 2001 edition. More advanced engineering techniques were used in the evaluation and analysis of the data gathered on the fire scene.

DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES

The structure that was examined was a two (2) story, restaurant, nightclub, office and marina storage complex constructed of a poured concrete and wood frame lower story and a wood frame upper story with steel over the wood frame roof.

FIRE PATTERNS

Fire patterns were observed emanating from the top of the remaining southwest corner concrete wall approximately 14 feet north of the outside wall of - the - lower level. This area was the location of the upstairs wood frame, enclosed nightclub main bar area. The fire appeared to have started in the wall between the enclosed portion of the nightclub bar and an open deck on the west side of the building with communication of the fire to wiring insulation, wood framing materials, furnishings of the upstairs restaurant and nightclub, furnishings of the lower level offices, paints, solvents, gasoline, and filled and partially filled LP gas tanks that were stored in the marina repair shop and storage area. A Sample was taken of a section of electrical conductor with a nail through it for engineering analysis. (Many other details from the report and inspection about the building exterior, interior, the electrical system and a hot-water heater were excluded in this summary for the sake of brevity here.)

SUMMARY

Analysis of the fire patterns, combined with observations of the several systems and areas of the structure had revealed that the fire initiated in the outer wall between the enclosed portion of the nightclub bar and an open deck on the west side of the bar area. One of the 1st firefighters on the scene indicated that this is the area where they first saw flames in the structure.

The result of Metallurgical testing had revealed evidence of copper adhering to two opposite sides of the steel nail indicating arcing between the two electrical conductors and the nail. One of the conductors had an indentation that exactly fit the nails contour. Other common fire causes such as discarded smoking materials, lighting, and spontaneous ignition had been eliminated.

It was the opinion of this organization that the fire was in all probability accidental in nature. The result of a nail being driven through an electrical conductor and over a period of time the insulation deteriorated causing an electrical fault between the copper conductors and the nail, initiating the fire sequence and thus damaged the building structure and sailing vessel.

 

 

Residential Fire, Fire Death, Alleged Electric Space Heater Failure

This case of a Residential Fire, Fire Death, Alleged Electric Space Heater Failure came to Fire Reconstruction Consultants, Inc. from:

David Chesnut, Attorney
Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer
215 South Federal Highway
Suite 101
Stuart, Florida

After an extensive search for a fire expert, Attorney David Chesnut hired Walt Godfrey through TASA as his fire expert on a residential fire death case. He represented the homeowner whose wife had died in the fire. Mr. Chesnut had this to say about Walt Godfrey after a very successful settlement in his Client’s favor. “ We had Excellent Results. Walt was an Excellent Fire Expert. He made the case for us and brought it home”

THE SUMMARY

The residence was a rectangular single-family structure constructed predominately of CBS with wood trusses. Attached to the rear of this structure was an addition consisting of a “Florida Room” and screen room constructed of wood. The Screen and “Florida’ rooms evidenced the heaviest damage. The interior of the structure had heavy smoke damage throughout, with the heaviest fire damage in the rear Florida and screen rooms and extending into the kitchen, living room, utility and garage areas located on the west side of the structure. The east side of the structure housed the bedrooms, the room in which the victim was found was the master bedroom which adjoined a master bath, closet and hallway which served as the primary means of exit.

Even though it had been two years since the fire, the structure was still in place. Walt Godfrey conducted a complete fire scene investigation with the assistance of his forensic photographer. He determined where the fire started and located the origin of the fire. It was also opined that a popular electric space heater had caused the fire.

As part of his normal investigative techniques he always tries to get all the information he can on the product, piece of equipment, plans of the building or complete drawings of the vessel in question. The manufacturer of the heater was contacted for information, they stated there was no documentation concerning the heater, because, “that model was designed many years ago and no specific design drawings remain”.

During the course of the investigation it was determined that the heater had been recalled. The Recall alert was in the January 2006 issue of Good Housekeeping magazine, which referenced the heaters. It read “Recall alerts – Are there unsafe products in your home? Check the list below. These items were recalled by manufacturer's in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. And there was the heater, and also listed were the places where they were sold and it stated the problem was the “power cord on the units can fray or sever, causing the fan to stop working and to overheat, posing a fire hazard.”

The Attorney’s and Walt Godfrey looked all over the U.S. and Canada and could not find another heater like the one that caused the fire. An extra bonus to the case was when Walt Godfrey was in a conference with another attorney on another case in their office and he noticed a heater. He asked if he could examine it and it turned out to be the model of the same heater in the fire. Needless to say, after Walt told the attorney about the case he was working on and about the recall of the heater the attorney offered the heater to Walt. He was then able to compare the burned heater to the working one he had acquired.

After Walt read the depositions of all parties concerned, he gave a video deposition. Mr. Chestnut advised us that Mr. Godfrey’s testimony was instrumental in the very successful pre-trial settlement, (thus avoiding any further expenses of a trial), in favor of the plaintiff and “brought the case home” Back to About page

 

 

91 Foot Yacht Explosion and Fire

Summary report of Yacht Explosion and Fire. Fire Reconstruction Consultants was hired to conduct an investigation to determine the origin and cause of the explosion and fire that damaged the 91 foot vessel.

The following is a summary report of the data gathered during the on scene investigation and analyzed in order to determine the origin and cause of this incident in accordance with the basic standards set forth in NFPA 921, 2001 edition. Advanced techniques and standards that go beyond the basic criteria set forth in NFPA 921 and the various ASTM standards for chemical testing, evidence documentation & handling and explosion & fire dynamics may have been used in the analysis of the data gathered.

Fire patterns were observed emanating from two (2) separate unconnected sections of the vessel with communication of the fire to liquid combustibles, wooden decks, cabin furnishings, wiring insulation, bedding materials, interior headliners, aluminum superstructure, etc. One of the areas of origin was the port side of the laundry room and the other was in the aft stateroom at the stern of the vessel. Patterns in other areas indicated the probability of additional areas of origin, however, all of the combustible materials had been consumed and additional samples could not be secured.

Samples were taken from the vessel for evidence and chemical testing purposes.

Analysis of the explosion and fire patterns, laboratory testing results combined with observations of the several systems and various areas of the vessel and other information uncovered and analyzed had revealed evidence of highly volatile ignitable liquid materials having been placed throughout the vessel and ignited. Numerous metal cans were found throughout the vessel with holes punched into the tops, sides or bottoms. Many were found without tops in place and no evidence to suggest that the tops had been forcibly removed during the explosion and fire sequences. Other cans did show the effects of flame impingement. Clean window glass and teak blinds with no evidence of soot or other unburned combustion by-products were found scattered in a wide arc up to 228 feet from the vessel. The heavy teak steps from the aft cabin to the aft cockpit were found in an unburned but shattered condition between 48 to 69 feet from the stern of the vessel. The result of explosion pattern analysis indicated that the epicenter of the explosion was located in the approximate center of the main salon/stateroom areas of the vessel.

A vessel employee was on board the vessel at the time of the explosion and fire. He had left work at approximately 20:30 the evening before the incident and there had been no explanation as to why he was back on board the vessel at approximately 01:30 when the explosion and fire occurred. Evidence that he had a burned thorax suggests that he was inside the vessel and breathing the explosive atmosphere just prior to or when the explosion and fire initiation occurred. He also sustained a fractured left foot, left leg and left thorasic vertebra which may have indicated that he was standing with his left foot on the steps from the aft cabin to the cockpit when the explosion occurred. He also sustained burns on his lower legs, thorax and face. He has since died and it is believed that no statement was secured from him before his death.

Distinct burn patterns were visible on the port side of the vessel in the area of the laundry and refrigeration room, below the formal dining salon and on the deck in the after stateroom area. The vertex of the Vee shaped pattern on the exterior port side of the vessel indicated a truncated cone fire pattern that corresponded to a puddle burn type pattern found on the top of the laundry room counter outboard of the washer and dryer. Sample #1 was taken from this puddle burn pattern. The other visible pattern was a trailer type puddle burn pattern running from the port bunk in the after stateroom across the wood deck and through a hatch down into the bilge in the center of the aft stateroom. Sample #3 was taken from this pattern. Other areas also appeared to have fairly distinct patterns, however, all of the combustible materials had burned away in those areas precluding additional samples being taken.

The result of chemical testing, in accordance with the basic ASTM standard E-1618-97, Standard guide for identification of ignitable liquid residues in extracts from fire debris samples by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry and other more advanced standards had revealed the presence of added ignitable liquids in both test samples 1 & 3. Both samples are similar to control sample #2.

Common fire causes such as discarded smoking materials, electrical faults and failures and spontaneous ignition had been eliminated in the areas of fire origin.

It was the opinion of this organization that the cause of the explosion and fire was, in all probability, incendiary in nature. The result of person or persons, having placed ignitable liquids in various areas of the vessel and causing them to become ignited.

 

 

Bicycle Shop Arson Suspect

"This is one of the first big cases I won and I can tell you Walt Godfrey was instrumental in winning this case. Walt taught me about fires. Twenty years later when a fire case is mentioned in our firm, the next statement is, call Godfrey and retain him as our fire expert."

H. Scott Bates, Attorney
Morgan & Morgan
20 North Orange Avenue
Suite 1600
Orlando, Florida 32801

WHY WAS FIRE RECONSTRUCTION CALLED?
The owner of a bicycle shop had been accused of arson, and had protested his innocence in vain. Fire Reconstruction Consultants was called by the Store Owners Insurance Company to defend the owner from a civil arson claim by the building owners insurance company for the purpose of subrogation.

THE OFFICIAL'S INITIAL INVESTIGATIVE STORY
Local and state officials had detected a large floor level burn pattern that indicated to them large amounts of flammable liquid on one area of the floor and suspected these liquids had been placed there to start the fire.

THE TRUTH
Careful investigation by Walter Godfrey, along with an on-looker’s video of the fire in progress, showed the fire had started above the ceiling in another part of the building. The suspicious patterns were found under an overhead bicycle tire display rack and were actually caused by the melted butyl-rubber bicycle tires dripping down and burning on the floor.

THE LESSON
Not all suspicious fires are arson. According to Godfrey, many of the cases labeled “suspicious” by other investigators are really accidents. Why do these investigators see crimes where none have been committed? “It has to do with the way they’re being trained,” explains Walter Godfrey. “Since 1976, more emphasis has been placed on arson detection than on a solid basic fire investigation. Many times these investigators see patterns they don’t understand, or see patterns that, under another set of circumstances, would indicate an abnormal fire and they call it suspicious or incendiary when it is in fact an accidental fire.” Godfrey does a detailed point-by point reconstruction investigation in order to eliminate mis-identifying the fire cause. .

THE OUTCOME

The insurance company was not going to pay the Store Owners Claim, but the jury awarded him policy limits, punitive damages and all attorney fees paid.