Merged Spontaneous Human Combustion In Ireland

Eejit

Student
E
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
26
Well this is embarrassing! A Coroner's court in Galway has officially ruled that an elderly man died from spontaneous human combustion.

No trace of accelerant was found. The ceiling above the body was burnt as was the area underneath. The man's organs were too badly burnt to establish a cause of death. The pathologist came to the conclusion that the man had died from spontaneous human combustion because he could find no other cause. It was determined that the fire in the open fireplace in the same room that the body had been found in, was not the source of the fire that killed the man. And the court has now officially sanctioned this finding.

Death by woo!

Sounds like bs to me. Any thoughts?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0923/1224304578285.html
 
I remember, once upon a time, seeing a documentary in which a rather compelling argument was made, suggesting that the action of a small fire on clothing can cause human fat to wick through the fabric and quickly become a conflagration that burns fiercely, hot and fast, and self extinguishes when the fuel (the fat) is expended.

That explained why arms and legs tend to be untouched - there's simply less fat to fuel the fire.

They tested it with pig carcasses and as far as that analogue was concerned, it was a sound theory which seemed to account for all of the commonly observed phenomena.

I can't remember what program it was though. I'll see if I can find it, but in the mean time does anyone else remember the same thing?

ETA:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4456428.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/158853.stm
a couple of BBC news reports on the subject. I can't find the show on YouTube, or such like, but my Google-Fu is weak.
 
Last edited:
Yes I remember it, but have no references to hand.

Also it was suggested that the majority of people found in a state that could be attributed to SHC, were infact smokers and it was commonly thought that the cause of these fires were through falling asleep with a lit cigarette (also wearing synthetic fibred clothing added to the hazard).
 
Even granted that SHC would be possible, this verdict seems a bit like a copout, and certainly unscientific.

A question: Isn't it the coroner's job to find out of what the person died, rather than what/who killed him?
 
Evolved Wookie said:
I remember, once upon a time, seeing a documentary in which a rather compelling argument was made, suggesting that the action of a small fire on clothing can cause human fat to wick through the fabric and quickly become a conflagration that burns fiercely, hot and fast, and self extinguishes when the fuel (the fat) is expended.

That explained why arms and legs tend to be untouched - there's simply less fat to fuel the fire.

They tested it with pig carcasses and as far as that analogue was concerned, it was a sound theory which seemed to account for all of the commonly observed phenomena.

I can't remember what program it was though. I'll see if I can find it, but in the mean time does anyone else remember the same thing?

ETA:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4456428.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/158853.stm
a couple of BBC news reports on the subject. I can't find the show on YouTube, or such like, but my Google-Fu is weak.
Click to expand...
I remember something like that, but it must be 20 or 30 years ago. Maybe Tomorrow's World or one of those magazine programmes like Nationwide? I'll keep thinking.
 
Coroner's Report:
Well waaat da yer nu, Paddy, yer man jist exploded into lashings av flames. Who wud av tart such a ting'?

:D
 
Evolved Wookie said:
I remember, once upon a time, seeing a documentary in which a rather compelling argument was made, suggesting that the action of a small fire on clothing can cause human fat to wick through the fabric and quickly become a conflagration that burns fiercely, hot and fast, and self extinguishes when the fuel (the fat) is expended.

That explained why arms and legs tend to be untouched - there's simply less fat to fuel the fire.

They tested it with pig carcasses and as far as that analogue was concerned, it was a sound theory which seemed to account for all of the commonly observed phenomena.

I can't remember what program it was though. I'll see if I can find it, but in the mean time does anyone else remember the same thing?

ETA:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4456428.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/158853.stm
a couple of BBC news reports on the subject. I can't find the show on YouTube, or such like, but my Google-Fu is weak.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was the QED programme. It tended to focus on the weird or sexier science topics, IIRC. The wicking effect seemed quite plausible as it was explained at the time.
 
Last edited:
It was QED in 1998. I've found plenty of reference to the show, but no handy-dandy streams of it.
 
Goes to show even a coroners court can provide a logical fallacy as an official finding.

"I can't think of a way he set on fire, therefore spontaneous combustion woo.

Rather depressing though. I thought courts and coroners would be rather well versed in critical thinking and logic. I'm probably being a bit harsh there, as this is only one case, but it certainly doesn't make much sense.
 
Upon rereading the original link, it looks like this guy is using "spontaneous combustion" as a catch all for "I can't confirm the cause through evidence, so it's unknown what caused it."

But why not just bleeding say "cause unknown?"
 
Evolved Wookie said:
It was QED in 1998. I've found plenty of reference to the show, but no handy-dandy streams of it.
Click to expand...

I saw it too.

But I imagine you'd have to have died of natural causes first, otherwise those smouldering fires would tend to wake one up pdq.
 
I wonder if the person in question was a smoker and/or a drinker.

I wonder if there were cigerettes & alcahol in the room.

I have read that many alleged SHC victims were heavy into tobacco & alcahol use.

I would like to hear more of an explanation from the Coroner. He is clearly making a huge logical leap hear.

FIrst, the articale says:
"West Galway corner Dr Ciarán McLoughlin said he had never encountered such a case in the 25 years that he had been investigating deaths in the region."


At the end, he is quoted as saying: “This fire was thoroughly investigated and I’m left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation”

It is terrible work. He admits the case is unlike anything he has seen, and that his alleged cause is not understood.

It's like he is saying "I don't know what happened, so I will say something I think it might be is the cause."
 
caniswalensis said:
...At the end, he is quoted as saying: “This fire was thoroughly investigated and I’m left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation”...
Click to expand...
Also this,

Dr McLoughlin said he had consulted medical textbooks and carried out other research in an attempt to find an explanation.

He said Prof Bernard Knight, in his book on forensic pathology, had written about spontaneous combustion and noted that such reported cases were almost always near an open fireplace or chimney.
​
Dr McLoughlin seems to have a reading comprehension problem.

While Prof. Knight does make the above observation in "Knight's Forensic Pathology", it is in this context.
Atypical Localised burning and 'Spontaneous Combustion'.
​
Some very strange instances of fatal burning occur and most experienced forensic pathologists have recollections of apparently inexplicable cases. A human body may sometims burn away almost completely, yet the surrounding fire damage is minimal. These almost invariably occur near a hearth or open fire-grate or chimney.
​
Note his quotes around the words Spontaneous Combustion as it goes to indicate what he actually thinks of the phenomenon.

Such events have given rise to the myth of spontaneous combustion.
​
And from his "Lawyer's guide to Forensic Medicine",
A persistent myth, centuries old, which claims that a living human body can spontaneously burst into flames and be consumed.
​
 
GlennB said:
I saw it too.

But I imagine you'd have to have died of natural causes first, otherwise those smouldering fires would tend to wake one up pdq.
Click to expand...

Almost without a doubt, or at least so inebriated as to remain unconscious long enough to succumb to the smoke and fumes.
 
I vaguely remember the 'wicking' explanation too and the poor pig in a blanket experiment. If I remember correctly, there was an accelerant used.

In this particular case we have a claim that there was no accelerant.

The ruling is a pure "god of the gaps" argument. The bar has been set to a new low!
 
Last edited:
I don't recall an accelerant, but then neither do I specifically recall there not being one. Either way, the ruling is a depressing one. Let's just hope he as having a bad day, or making an ill-advised quip. Any way you skew it, it should never have happened.
 
I recall a couple of documentaries where 'spontaneous combustion' was reproduced using a pig or part of a pig wrapped in cloth, but I don't recall any accelerants being involved (surely this would invalidate the whole procedure?). IIRC the wrapping cloth was lit at a single point in each test, as might be the case with a dropped cigarette, candle, or spark or ember from a wood or coal fire.

The BBC report of this case says "Forensic experts found a fire in the fireplace of the sitting room where the badly burnt body was found had not been the cause of the blaze that killed Mr Faherty". I wonder how they could be sure of that... Unfortunately not enough information is supplied for more than speculation.
 
I saw a documentary where they tried the pig wicking experiment. They used a box trailer as the "room" and placed rugs, furniture & a wrapped pig in it.

The experiment failed. At first they got no flame & little combustion. Then they opened the door to increase the oxygen, and it ended in a rapid conflagration that destroyed the trailer and left the pig in a state that was more typical of a body from a house fire.

That does not disprove the wicking theory of course. I still think that wicking is the best explanation I have heard for classic SHC cases. What it does show is that if the wicking theory is correct it requires very specific conditions; which would agree with the rarity of classic SHC cases.
 
caniswalensis said:
I saw a documentary where they tried the pig wicking experiment. They used a box trailer as the "room" and placed rugs, furniture & a wrapped pig in it.

The experiment failed. At first they got no flame & little combustion. Then they opened the door to increase the oxygen, and it ended in a rapid conflagration that destroyed the trailer and left the pig in a state that was more typical of a body from a house fire.

That does not disprove the wicking theory of course. I still think that wicking is the best explanation I have heard for classic SHC cases. What it does show is that if the wicking theory is correct it requires very specific conditions; which would agree with the rarity of classic SHC cases.
Click to expand...
Yeah - it seems you need oxygen as well to fuel the fire.

Again, from Prof.Knight's pathology book,
Most cases have in common the fact that there was a source of ignition in an open fire and a chimney which can provide constant updraught -​

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom