Free Steeped in Blood by David Klatzow

debris and could show that there were trails along the floor where the fire had followed a flammable accelerant, which had been placed there prior to the fire. After analysing the remains, I could also show that the house had contained almost no normal house contents when the fire occurred.
    In my report to the insurance company, I had referred to the accelerant as ‘petrol’. By the time the matter came to trial two years later, my experience had taught me that the correct way to refer to the material that I had found was not ‘petrol’, but rather ‘fossil fuel–based accelerant’. Petrol comes out of a pump, and, once ignited, it is altered by the evaporation and heat during the fire – after a fire it is technically no longer petrol.
    I wanted to correct my report based on what I had learnt subsequently. The insurance company’s legal advisor instructed me not to. I knew that using the word ‘petrol’ was blatantly wrong, and could result in stringent cross-examination. I was outraged that a legal advisor could dictate to me what my report should contain, particularly as this report was going to be used in a court of law. I refused point-blank to cooperate. The insurance company’s claims manager vowed never to engage me again, and that was the end of my work with that company.
    I was subpoenaed by the state to testify as a witness in this case. Two years later, at the civil trial, Deneys Reitz wanted me to testify on their client’s behalf, which I ended up doing.
    This was my first encounter with what I believe to be the unacceptable side of business, and the power that money holds. The larger insurance companies have vast sums of money at their disposal, and can decide at a whim whom to instruct. For a young struggling consultant, insurance investigations can be very tempting indeed. The danger comes in when the insurance company’s agenda is different from the scientific agenda. I have always refused to bow to their requests and have exercised the utmost integrity in my work. I believe that once you start altering scientific reports to suit the client or submitting information that you know is incorrect, you become beholden to your client and your credibility suffers in the long run.
    When giving evidence in a court of law, it is absolutely critical for the expert witness to be free from obligations; to be seen as completely independent. If the majority of a forensic investigator’s work comes from a single source, such as the insurance industry, then he or she always risks being at the behest of the combined force of money and power. This is not a good recipe for honest behaviour. It is quite true that many claims submitted to insurers are false to the point of fraud, but dishonesty on the part of the insurers towards their clients – and there is no doubt that some of the insurers resort to dishonest business practices – is not a solution to the problem.
    My work in the area of fires had a direct impact on my personal life, for which I am eternally grateful. After about eighteen months of fire investigation, I had completed a few cases with an American insurance company called CIGNA. The company invited me to speak at its conference in Johannesburg, and, unbeknown to me, my now wife, Shelona, and a colleague, Susan Edwards, were in the audience. Some two weeks later, there was a fire in Long Streetin Cape Town, on a site that was being renovated by Resnekov & Nielsen. CIGNA was the liability insurance company, and Shelona and Susan Edwards asked me to investigate the fire.
    It was a simple case to solve, and ultimately CIGNA paid the claim: the welder had dropped sparks onto the floor, causing the fire. After I’d inspected the site, we all went to lunch, and Shelona was part of the group. When I returned to Johannesburg, we remained in contact and, shortly afterwards, we were married. A fully qualified archaeologist, Shelona manages my practice, and it has been a fantastic partnership and marriage