Investigating electric accidents — The art of forensic investigation (Examining foresight in hindsight)

Abstract

If one works in the world of electrical safety long enough, taking part in forensic investigations is almost inevitable. Whether one is investigating an electrical incident in-house, or investigating as an expert witness, the nature of forensic investigation is largely the same. Whether analyzing a product failure or advising an attorney, forensic investigations are driven by similar principles and process. The goal is to find the truth, document the facts, find who or what is at fault, advise and educate others, and act to drive a remedy for bad situations. Forensic meaning `applying scientific knowledge to legal issues', implies interaction with that annoying sub-species known as the lawyer. Although often quite knowledgeable regarding the subject matter, few forensic investigators are schooled in the cross-over between the engineering and legal worlds. At the end of the day, the forensic expert is tasked with educating a population unfamiliar with the environment in which the incident occurred and the technology involved in the incident. Forensic investigation starts with fact finding. For the in-house investigator, this may be relatively easy. For the consultant attached to litigation, fact finding is conducted through a formal process called “discovery.” Contrary to what many believe, preserving evidence and avoiding spoliation is the responsibility of everyone involved in the investigation. Once the facts are known, forensic investigators are tasked with developing working theories, answering the unanswered questions, and assigning probabilities to alternative explanations. In complex scenarios, knowing what occurred to the legal standard of “more likely than not” may become more difficult than not. No matter what lawyers and employers tell their forensic team, forensic investigators must remain independent and at times be painfully honest. The worst mistake made during an investigation is trying to develop answers that serve one's client that are contrary to the facts and probabilities. Forensic experts should leave the “circle the wagons” mentality to the attorneys. Many an expert (including this author) has learned the costly lesson that being a “team player” often does not survive the harsh and adversarial environment of the courtroom. Letting the legal team assess litigation risk based on the real truth and non-sugar-coated facts serves the best interests of one's client. Forensic investigators should not play lawyer, should not play adversary, and should not over-invest in the outcome of the investigation. They should do what engineers are trained to do, the way that engineers are trained to do it. In the words of the great Jack Webb, forensic investigation is about “just the facts".