Forums

Posted: 23-09-2011 17:51 Post subject:

'First Irish case' of death by spontaneous combustion

A man who burned to death in his home died as a result of spontaneous combustion, an Irish coroner has ruled.
It is believed to be the first case of its kind in Ireland.
West Galway coroner Dr Ciaran McLoughlin said it was the first time in 25 years of investigating deaths that he had recorded such a verdict.

Michael Faherty, 76, died at his home at Clareview Park, Ballybane, Galway on 22 December 2010.
Deaths attributed by some to "spontaneous combustion" occur when a living human body is burned without an apparent external source of ignition.
Typically police or fire investigators find burned corpses but no burned furniture.

An inquest in Galway on Thursday heard how investigators had been baffled as to the cause of Mr Faherty's death.
Forensic experts found that 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.
The court was told that no trace of an accelerant had been found and there had been nothing to suggest foul play.

The court heard Mr Faherty had been found lying on his back with his head closest to an open fireplace.
The fire had been confined to the sitting room. The only damage was to the body, which was totally burnt, the ceiling above him and the floor underneath him.

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

"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," he said.

Retired professor of pathology Mike Green said he had examined one suspected case in his career.
He said he would not use the term spontaneous combustion, as there had to be some source of ignition, possibly a lit match or cigarette.
"There is a source of ignition somewhere, but because the body is so badly destroyed the source can't be found," he said.
He said the circumstances in the Galway case were very similar to other possible cases.
"This is the picture which is described time and time again," he said.
"Even the most experienced rescue worker or forensic scientist takes a sharp intake of breath (when they come across the scene)."

Mr Green said he doubted explanations centred on divine intervention.
"I think if the heavens were striking in cases of spontaneous combustion then there would be a lot more cases. I go for the practical, the mundane explanation," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15032614

Posted: 02-10-2011 09:12 Post subject:

The 'wick effect' is a great example of the most egregious kind of non-rational 'rational' explanations. Even as a theory it completely fails to explain any of the key factors of SHC (often very short burning-time, almost complete consumption of the body and calcining of bones, and apparent extreme heat without ignition of nearby inflammables). In experiment it failed almost every test, unless the experimenters blatantly cheated by adding accelerants.

Scientifically it has been disproved as a theory. And yet it's still touted, by many of our greatest bastions of science, as the last word in rational thinking on the subject.

I tell ya, the word 'rational' has lost its meaning and become a synonym for 'culturally acceptable'.

Posted: 02-10-2011 10:50 Post subject:

True enough, I don't think I've heard any thoroughly satisfying explanations yet.

Posted: 02-10-2011 11:17 Post subject:

I think the wick thing might explain some of the less odd cases, actually. The ones where an alcoholic smoker dozes off with a fag in the hand while wrapped in all their woollen clothes because they've spent all their money on booze rather than heating. Very sad. Glad I've given up smoking.

But the more spectacular cases, no.

And yes, AngelAlice, you are dead right about 'rational' now meaning 'culturally acceptable'. Moreover, 'culturally acceptable' to a particular class of people. Hmph

Posted: 02-10-2011 14:02 Post subject:

I like your outlook Angelalice. You should have an 'audience' with James Randi.

Posted: 03-10-2011 20:56 Post subject:

The irony there is that the 'rational' and scientific view used to be on the side of the people who believed in a supernatural or mysterious explanation for SHC.

Before Horizon did their porcine pyro practical, whenever the subject was discussed it would invariably be claimed that it must be something we didn;t understand and scientists would be quoted on the temperatures needed to render down a human body to that degree and how it was unachievable outside of an incinerator with air being forced through it.

Quite a good example in itself of how wrong experts can sometimes be.