Hey, there! Log in / Register
Feds criticize Boston Fire Department for fatal Tai Ho fire
By adamg on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 8:16pm
Channel 4 points us to a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health report on the 2007 fire that killed Boston firefighters Paul Cahill and Warren Payne, which says a number of contributing factors led to their deaths:
- Ineffective incident management system at the incident.
- Insufficient incident management training and requirements.
- Insufficient tactics and training.
- Ineffective communications.
- Delay in establishing a rapid intervention team.
- Inadequate building code enforcement and development.
- Inadequate turnout clothing and personal protective equipment.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
And they're off!
Who knew the tentacles of the Menino anti-BFD smear machine extended all the way to OSHA?
Sounds like there's plenty of blame for both the BFD and the city to share though given the code enforcement issues to go with incident specific issues. Christ, you'd hope that a tragic event like this would lead to some sort of improvement, but it isn't clear to me that either the city of the BFD have changed anything in response to this fire.
The City is the BFD. The
The City is the BFD. The Commissioner is appointed by the mayor.
The key line
No one wants to hurt the families of the firefighters who died in this incident -- they answered the call and died serving this city. That said, at some point there has to be some adult discussion of what happened here.
The Boston Fire Department refused to cooperate with a federal investigation.
Suffolk DA Dan Conley refused to cooperate with a federal investigation.
WTF is that about?
The Boston Fire Department
I couldn't find "refused to cooperate" in the text. In some cases, officials are not at liberty to release the documents without permission of the family. So who exactly withheld relevant information? What does it say about that?
Weird how it became public knowledge that
there was cocaine and alcohol involved, but it's somehow not part of the public record. So, "officially", is it true or untrue? I guess it's a murky legal area, but it seems we had a whole public policy conversation based in large part on the somehow unconfirmable rumors of the firefighters' intoxication. From the families' perspective, it would seem that the damage has already been done, so why suppress the autopsy reports now?
I've spent the day scouring
I've spent the day scouring correspondence and inquiring of our staff, and we have no record of any such request from NIOSH. My phone call to their press office remains unanswered.
This office did not "refuse to cooperate with a federal investigation." In fact, we were never asked to, and if we were, we would have no reason not to cooperate.
Jake we all know you are hiding something...
or covering something up.
LEO sarcasm alert
(:o)
Jake
Post the information they request online, post a link here, and send them an email telling them where to find it. I'll wait here for you to report back.
Thanks, Anonymous -- you
Thanks, Anonymous -- you were right earlier when you indicated that autopsy reports are privileged documents, though, so I won't be able to post them here.
Also, in conversations with our staff who were out of the office for the Veteran's Day holiday, I learned that NIOSH apparently did call here in early 2008 requesting the reports. The staffer who took the call appropriately instructed NIOSH to send us a written request so an attorney could contact the Medical Examiner's office and either object or not object to their release.
(Why? The ME's office is the creator and custodian of all autopsy reports. It's the only agency that can release or not release them, in their discretion, after checking to see if we have an objection. The ME's office is also the only agency that NIOSH doesn't say it contacted to obtain those reports.)
NIOSH never sent any such request, however, and never bothered to ask the one agency that could help them.
Here's the relevant
Here's the relevant law:
TITLE 505: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER
CHAPTER 1.00: DISCLOSURE OF AUTOPSY REPORTS
505 CMR 1.05 (2008)
1.05: Disclosure of Autopsy Reports to Investigatory Bodies
The Office may, in its discretion, provide a copy of the autopsy report of a decedent to a requesting investigatory body if the following conditions are met:
(1) The investigatory body demonstrates that the autopsy report likely contains information that is relevant, material, and necessary for the complete and proper investigation of the death;
(2) In cases of unnatural or suspicious death where the district attorney or his law enforcement representative is directing and controlling the investigation of the death pursuant to M.G.L. c. 38, § 4, the district attorney or his law enforcement representative has determined, in his discretion and in writing, that, that he does not object to the disclosure of the autopsy report to the investigatory body; and
(3) The Office issues, along with the release of the autopsy report, a statement that autopsy reports are not public records and should not be disseminated or used for any purposes other than those authorized by law.
thanks Jake
So the Medical Examiner didn't release the document "at families' request" even though "The Globe has previously reported that the results showed Payne had traces of cocaine in his system and Cahill had a blood alcohol content of 0.27, three times the legal limit to drive in Massachusetts."
Remember how the "BFD review" said the tox screen info couldn't be used in their report but if it could, it wasn't a factor. Guffaw.
And this time the DA steps back, and the Mayor steps back and no one takes leadership to get the information into the hands of the investigators, even though a comprehensive report is in the interest of the greater good.
And faith in government to do the right thing takes another hit.
.
.
.
.
Medical examiner office says it refused to release the results
The Globe reports.
It's about time. You don't
It's about time. You don't need an expert study to know that the officer in charge sent his men in without checking the top of the one story roof to see if the weakened structure might have an all-too-common air conditioner on top of it. You could probably see it from the back if you stood on tiptoes. There was no one in the building, and there was no need to go inside without a good look-see first.
What difference would that have made?
First of all, there were diners and employees inside the building. Second this was not a raging inferno when the fd arrived, it was a restaraunt with a smoke condition.
"Wait! Don't go in that building it has an AC on the roof! Let's watch it burn to the ground." The fd would never go in any building if that were the case. Were you there that night, do you have any idea what happened? It's pretty easy to find fault, especially when the account of that night you are basing your judgements on are partially from your memory of a newpaper article you read 2 years ago, and partially on your own imagination.
What is your background in fire fighting exactly?