Merged Spontaneous Human Combustion In Ireland

I remembered the name of a 'Doctor DeHaan' having performed the pig experiment. An accelerant was used - I found this:
A more economical and reasonable theory of how human bodies burn in rooms without having the entire room engulfed in flames is the idea of the wick effect. The ignition point of human fat is low and to get the fire going would require an external source. Once ignited, however, a "wick effect" from the body's fat would burn hot enough in certain places to destroy even bones. To prove that a human being might burn like a candle, Dr. John de Haan of the California Criminalistic Institute wrapped a dead pig in a blanket, poured a small amount of gasoline on the blanket, and ignited it. Even the bones were destroyed after five hours of continuous burning. The fat content of a pig is very similar to the fat content of a human being. The damage to the pig, according to Dr. De Haan "is exactly the same as that from supposed spontaneous human combustion." A National Geographic special on SHC showed a failed attempt to duplicate the burning pig experiment. However, it is obvious that the failure was due to leaving the door to the room open to the outside, which created a draft and led to the flames igniting everything in the room. Had the room been closed up, as are the rooms in which many of the elderly persons have died in fires attributed to SHC, it is likely that the pig would have smoldered for several hours without the rest of the room becoming engulfed in flames.
Click to expand...
http://www.skepdic.com/shc.html
 
Spontaneous Human Combustion reported in Ireland!

According to the Telegraph:

"Michael Faherty, 76, was found lying face down near an open fire in his living room in Galway, Ireland.

Dr Kieran McLoughlin, the West Galway coroner, said it was the first time in his 25 year career that he had returned a spontaneous combustion verdict

Forensic experts found that a fire in the fireplace of the sitting room where the man's badly burned body was found had not been the cause of the blaze.

The court was told that no trace of an accelerant had been found and there had been nothing to suggest foul play. The coroner said he was satisfied nobody had entered or left the house that night.

The fire which killed Mr Faherty was confined to the sitting room. The only damage was to the body, which was totally burned, the ceiling above him and the floor underneath him.

He said he referred to a book written by forensic pathologist on spontaneous combustion and noted that such reported cases were almost always near an open fireplace or chimney. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ner-died-of-spontaneous-human-combustion.html


Call me skeptical, but the "almost always near an open fireplace or chimney" makes me wonder if there is a more prosaic explanation for these occurrences...
 
My skepticism of spontaneous human combustion has increased tremendously, since the day I decided to dispose of a side of bacon that had gone bad, by tossing it in the fireplace. Woohoo! Once it gets going, meat burns.

The only damage was to the body, which was totally burned, the ceiling above him and the floor underneath him
Click to expand...

Based on the bacon incident, I could definitely imagine flames leaping up to the ceiling.

What I don't understand is this:

Forensic experts found that a fire in the fireplace of the sitting room where the man's badly burned body was found had not been the cause of the blaze.
Click to expand...

How does one determine that? No sparks jumped out? He didn't reach forward, catch his sleeve on fire, then step back? How would you know, if there were no witnesses, the man is dead and his body totally burned?
 
I remember this being discussed in "The 13th Element" (a book about phosphorus), and the CSI crew did some similar tests with pigs. If someone's drunk enough that they won't wake up from a fire in their flab, then they go up like a torch. Supposedly.
 
Pup said:
How does one determine that? No sparks jumped out? He didn't reach forward, catch his sleeve on fire, then step back? How would you know, if there were no witnesses, the man is dead and his body totally burned?
Click to expand...

Maybe they did DNA tests on the ash, and the two fires were totally unrelated. :eye-poppi
 
Pup said:
My skepticism of spontaneous human combustion has increased tremendously, since the day I decided to dispose of a side of bacon that had gone bad, by tossing it in the fireplace. Woohoo! Once it gets going, meat burns.
Click to expand...
Isn't leaving bacon to go bad against the law?... it damn well should be! :mad:
 
Coroner Rules Death By Spontaneous Combustion in UK

I didn't think this would be accepted on a coroner's report....

An Irish pensioner found burnt to death at his home died from spontaneous human combustion, an inquest has concluded.

The West Galway coroner, Kieran McLoughlin, said there was no other adequate explanation for the death of 76-year-old Michael Faherty, also known as Micheal O Fatharta. He said it was the first time in his 25 years as a coroner that he had returned such a verdict.

An Irish police crime scene investigator and a senior fire officer told the inquest in Galway that they could not explain how Faherty burned to death. Both said they had not come across such a set of circumstances before.

The assistant chief fire officer, Gerry O'Malley, said fire officers were satisfied that an open fire in Faherty's fireplace had not been the cause of the blaze.

No trace of an accelerant was found at the scene, and there was no sign that anyone else had entered or left the house in Ballybane, Galway city.


snip

O'Callaghan told the coroner that the only damage was to Faherty's remains, the floor underneath him and the ceiling above. .

The inquest heard that fire officers had been unable to determine the cause or the origin of the fire.

The state pathologist, Prof Grace Callagy, noted in her post-mortem findings that Faherty had Type 2 diabetes and hypertension, but concluded he had not died from heart failure.

His body had been extensively burned and, because of the extensive damage to the organs, it was not possible to determine the cause of death.

McLoughlin said: "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...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/23/irish-pensioner-killed-spontaneous-combustion
 
EHocking said:
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.
​
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Is Bernard Knight himself going to weigh in on Dr Mcloughlin's egregious quote-mining I wonder?

It's amazing that the guy could so spectacularly miss the point.
 
LTC8K6 said:
He was close to the fireplace. He probably died and then an ember landed on him and that was that. They wouldn't be able to tell.
Click to expand...

I think the above poster wins the thread.

An interesting case, and one where everything seemingly lined up just perfectly for a coroner to attach the 'spontaneous human combustion' tag. Hmmm.

My sources for information are listed below

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0923/1224304578285.html

http://lostchildreninthewilderness....ntaneous-human-combustion-killed-man-coroner/

http://www.galwaynews.ie/21713-galway-pensioner-died-spontaneous-combustion

http://www.medhours.com/coroners-verdict-of-spontaneous-combustion-in-galway-ireland/


For background, I'm an officer in a very large metropolitan Fire Service, with just short of 29 years experience. I've been on the pointy end of the fire suppression stick all my career, and have personally witnessed two (2) cases where Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC) was a very tempting conclusion. In both cases, other reasons were shown to be the cause of death.

In the first case, I personally put out the man on fire, and the second case I performed the initial investigation into fire cause determination. So, I do have limited experience in this specific type of death.

Regarding the Galway case, we must give the Galway Fire Service, the Garda, and the forensic folks in Dublin their due as professionals. It would be valuable to read their testimony at the coroners inquest.

SHC is not regarded, at least in my fire department, as a bona fide investigative conclusion. True SHC precludes any external source of combustion. That means no fireplaces, lit cigarettes, matches or other sources of combustion anywhere near the person under investigation. When an investigation has concluded and one is left with SHC, it is a flag to dig deeper for the underlying cause, which may not be apparent through the use of the most common investigative tools.

A cursory look at the statements attributed to the forensic pathologist on the case, Dr Grace Callagy seems to tell us the cause of death cannot be determined;

From The Galway City Tribune;

"Pathologist, Dr Grace Callagy stated that, due to burning, Mr Faherty’s stomach, intestines, liver, pancreas, kidneys, heart, and some of his bones – the fire would need to be between 700-1,000°C to cremate bones – were not present, and that toxicology examinations could not be carried out on his blood or urine for the same reason.

She said, however, that there was no evidence of oedema in the lung – which the coroner explained meant that he did not suffer a heart attack – and there was no evidence of a haemorrhage.

Significantly, Dr Callagy found no carbon material/soot in his trachea or a sample from his lung. “These suggest that he did not suffer from inhalation (smoke) injury and may not have been alive when the fire began,” she stated.
“The extensive nature of the burns sustained precludes determining the precise cause of death.”

So, the pathologist states the cause of death is 'undetermined', but the coroner signs off to SHC? Does he really?

Again, from The Galway City Tribune- this quote from the West Galway coroner, Dr Ciaran MacLoughlin, as telling the family;

“I’d say that the death was thoroughly investigated by the most experienced fire experts in the country, and I’m of the view that it fits in with spontaneous combustion, for which there is no scientific explanation,”

Without a look at the actual conclusion from the coroners report specifically stating the death was atrributable to SHC, we only have the reporter, Dearbhla Geraghty writing that SHC was the cause of death. That conclusion may have been picked up verbatim by the world press, and subsequently reported as such.

I'm a bit leery of accepting the 'official' cause of death as SHC, unless exactly stated as such in the official report. My understanding is that coroners' reports are sealed for an extensive period of time. Perhaps someone familiar with Irish law can clarify.

As I stated earlier, the discovery of the body near a source of combustion should shoot numerous red flags against concluding SHC, in my opinion. Perhaps Dr MacLoughlin was being slightly dramatic in his quotes to the press, with nothing of the sort actually stated in the body of the actual report?

In the two cases I have personally been involved in, one exhibited the localized combustion of just the lower half of the body. Both cigarettes and alcohol had been in the area prior to the fire. The second had involved an elderly person seated in a chair, but extensive investigation and testing eventually revealed that a cigarette butt had lodged underneath the person, between cushions and very combustible packaging had fueled the subsequent fire.

ETA; I see in the press the use of the word 'verdict' regarding the coroners inquest. I would appreciate hearing from someone who can confirm the verdict of the inquest was, specifically, SHC. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Good points, Snidely.

I wonder if the writer of the forensics books that the coroner was reading, Bernard Knight, can be contacted. He is apparently a professor of medicine at the University of Wales, Cardiff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom