Ep.18- From The Legal Desk (#1) with Deputy Attorney General Lauren Guber

In this episode of In Focus Fire, hosts Scott Kuhlman and Chasity Owens welcome Deputy Attorney General Lauren Guber for the debut of their new recurring segment "From the Legal Desk." Fresh from teaching a courtroom testimony class, Lauren shares invaluable insights from her unique perspective as a prosecutor, offering a fascinating glimpse into the intersection of fire investigation and legal proceedings.

The conversation delves deep into crucial topics like confirmation bias in fire investigations, the importance of proper documentation, and the delicate balance investigators must maintain when testifying in court. Lauren, drawing from her extensive experience as both a Los Angeles County District Attorney and now Deputy Attorney General, provides enlightening examples of courtroom scenarios and expert witness testimonies, including a compelling story about an expert witness who cited "the internet" as their research source.

The episode takes an interesting turn as Lauren discusses her journey from aspiring medical student to a prosecutor, revealing how a chance encounter with fire investigation cases involving drug labs led to her current expertise in arson prosecution. The hosts also announce Lauren's upcoming presentation at the California Conference of Arson Investigators in February 2025, where she'll be discussing the evolution of butane honey oil labs from residential settings to large-scale warehouse operations.

The discussion concludes with a valuable segment on the proper use of AI in report writing, addressing common misconceptions and providing practical guidance for investigators. The hosts introduce their traditional word segment, with Lauren offering "indicia" as a term that bridges the gap between law enforcement and fire investigation vocabularies. This episode serves as an essential resource for fire investigators, offering unique insights into the legal aspects of their profession while maintaining an engaging and educational tone throughout.

Thank you for listening!

If you enjoyed the episode, give us 5 stars, hit the follow button, and subscribe on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and anywhere you are listening in from.

Follow us on social media!
Instagram: @infocus_podcast
LinkedIn: INFOCUS podcast
Facebook: INFOCUS podcast
TikTok: @infocus_podcast

Transcript

Chasity: 0:07

Welcome to fire investigation in focus podcast. Your source for origin and cause insights. Join. Scott Kuhlman and Chasity Owens as we discussed the field of fire investigation and ignite your curiosity.

0:23

Whatever. Go ahead. I'm not going to argue. You argued by saying no. Okay, anyway. that should be in the beginning clip. Yeah. I'll just post that. You argued by saying no. I'm ready it's already recording. All right. Yo. He ha it's not, he hearts yee-haw. You. You do, you I'll do me. Well, hello. Hello, Scott. We've made it to episode 18. Yep. I'm excited. Welcome to. We've got us a special guest today. Well, actually beyond a special guests. Guests. It's a segment we've been trying to bring to air for a while, but we can. Never find the time where all of us are in the same room. Right. It'll be reoccurring. reoccurring segment and it's going to be called from the legal desk. And when it. Uh, errors. our goal is to have two attorneys on and it would be a defense attorney as well as a prosecutor. so that way we can talk about both sides and. What's going on. But unfortunately our defense attorney. Is a home sick. But we just got done, literally just. Just got done teaching the class and I have the honor of working with. And introducing. honor of Lauren Guber, who is here with us today. What's. Up Lauren. Hi. Hi guys. Thanks for having me. Hey, Hey. So, uh, I know we're a little tired. We just finished. I finished a segment in our investigation, one C class. Where we were in court all day. Going over the testimonies of our. Students. Yes. And they did fabulous. I think they did. I did. Is there something that you see in that class? That's reoccurring that we either have to un-train or train. Train them on from your. Perspective as an attorney. Or a prosecutor more specifically. As a prosecutor. I would say it would be great to just help build up more of their. Confidence. Um, you know, I try to do that in my presentation and talk. Talk to them about, you know, you are the most knowledgeable person in the room on. On this subject. And so your job in there is to. Educate the jury. Uh, and so you, uh, are. um, How to sit on the stand, how to look confident, even if they don't necessarily feel. I feel confident. I think that will go a long way. Cause I think if you look the part. Then you're going to be the part. Yeah. And one of the things. Or. The way we designed this class. Is. In the one, a where it's basic fire investigation. We actually have them go and they take part in a burn cell where it's actually burned. Out, we've gone to flashover approximately a minute after flashover. And we have them actually have to dig out the scene and they have to actually make a presentation. And where they think the fire originated and they have to articulate it in words like. These are the fire effects I observed. These are the fire patterns. When we get into. The one B, which is report writing and evidence collection. They actually have. To collect evidence, both for ignitable liquid residue. As well as maybe fingerprint DNA, they have to know how to collect it. Describe. What they want the lab to test it for, and they have to do a presentation in a report format. Format showing that they understand how to articulate their. In this. This class. We designed it so that. All that stuff. Comes to the finality. while they're on the stand and that they do have to take it serious and they see. I see that. When they're on the stand and they're asked the question, whether from you or from. The defense. They need to know like, oh, I really do need to understand fire. Firefox and fire patterns and understand. How long does it take that cigarette to ignite? Maybe cardboard. Or a wild land or you. Something like that. And I think we do pretty well on that because at the end we always pull. And they're like, look, I was nervous to do it, but I'm glad I did it. Cause now on to see how serious this job is and how my opinion. He is so serious in that setting. Right. And I think it, you could tell. From some of the guys who said that they really prepared the night before. Um, and went over the report and, uh, you know, some of the. Uh, research and things from at least one of them who admittedly. He said, you know, he didn't really prepare the night before and even. He said that it was, he could feel the difference. So I think it. It teaches them how much they need to prepare for. Testimony in court. And to, uh, the things that they need. To know before they go in there, that they are actually going to be asked about and challenged. on. Cause it's one thing to tell them in a class. Okay. These are the things that a defense attorney may challenge you on. And then it's quite another to. I sit there on the stand with a bunch of jurors sitting next to you, watching you. Having to say, okay. And FPA stands for. And you know, 10 33 is a standard nine 20. One's a guide. Uh, and keeping those things all straight in your head. It. It takes some practice. Literally, you could know that stuff. Stuff forward and backward, but unless you've practiced it in that kind of setting. It could leave your mind at an instant, just because of the nerves or. The. The atmosphere you had a, you did your training for. For courtroom setting through EKU. Yes, I. EKU. And edible. Yeah. That's right. And he did my class. Yeah. So. You've had a lot of training for courtroom. Yes. Um, Even though you're. Your. Educated. Like you have a degree. And you were brought up through. Through 9 21 and 10 33. That is that is your origin story. Or bars or more fire suppression into this field. How did you feel? Going up by let's talk about EKU then expert, witness. And then, uh, R one C class. EKU. Made me. Want to throw up. And that's thanks to Raquel. Cause I thought. She was going to be our defense attorney. Luckily she wasn't. But she was supposed to be. And we had heard horror stories of. How hard she comes down on people at EKU. And. There was one guy that was so nervous in my class. He really was throwing up in the bathroom before he. He was about to go in. So the funny thing is Raquel is our other half of, from. The legal desk. Yes. Uh, but unfortunately, like I said, she's been sick. so. Uh, she is with the innocence project. In San Diego. And it's good to get a, um, perspective. From both sides. We want to have both of them here at the same time. For Cal myself and Lauren, we teach. Um, Um, both one C, but we'll also, we kind of teach outside. Side of California to now occasionally. Yeah, there we've. We've been. Uh, requested by name at various organizations. We teach at the academy in, uh, the fire investigator. At academy and Fresno. Um, so yeah, I think word is getting out that. We have a. Uh, successful. Formula with the three of us. Uh, to really help prepare. Pair those investigators for what they might face in court. I think one thing we do different. Chastity and be curious to get your opinion. Excuse me. Um, We intentionally designed this class because I know. Um, which is good because some attorneys are going to go hard at you. Yeah. But sometimes that anticipation, you're just trying. Going to get through the class. Well, I've got to say I double AI. Was. A little less stressful because I got the. Um, I can even remember side. We didn't know. There was going to be someone on our side. So I immediately, I had a defense. To the guy who was on my side.'cause. I was like, I'm supposed to be like beating you right now or something like. I had a defensive attitude, not attitude, but like a defensive mindset. When he's just asking me what my name and my credentials. Dental's are and like trying to prove that, um, Trying to prove that. I'm qualified. And I thought he was trying to prove I wasn't qualified. Yeah. So I'm thinking that. he's trying to ask me all my qualifications to dis prove me. So anyway, but with I double a I, it was less nerve wracking because I was able to meet with the prosecutor. I was able to help, um, come up with the questions for the direct. And we kind of knew what aspects we were going to be getting attacked on and what aspects we wanted to come back with at the end. Because for those of you that haven't been through anything, um, Like that the direct comes back at the end to redirect. Yeah. Redirect. Right. And which made me look phenomenal. It was so good. I was like, kind of nervous. I knew I did well, but I was a little nervous, but she just wrapped it right up in a bow. It was so cool. So that's a good point. What I want to go on on that is that it's funny. So when you thought they were trying to disprove you, you had said like an intention, like I was starting to, you didn't say combative, but you got a little aggressive or in my, in my head, I was less relaxed and I was on the defense rather than helping him prove that I was qualified. I was short and to the point and not elaborating. Cause I didn't want to give him anything. So that brings up what I want to say in this class, which we just got done with none of our students, they treated the defense just as well as they treated the prosecution. They did. it was really outstanding the way that they were able to keep the same demeanor, whether it was, on direct or them being crossed. Sometimes in the past, some students, you can definitely tell that they get defensive when they start to be challenged on cross. But these guys all handled it extremely well. they rolled with the punches. They didn't get, short with whoever was, challenging them. Cross examining them. They really did a good job of being just their authentic selves through their whole testimony, which I think will go a long way because jurors can tell if you're not being yourself. And that goes for witnesses and attorneys alike. And so once you figure out how to be yourself, it's much more authentic for the jury. And I think the jury listens to you more. So, in case our listeners don't know, can you go over direct and then what that's like and what you can do and then across and what that's like and what you're able to do? Because it's different. Sure. You have different abilities depending if you're being in a direct or cross examination, correct? Right. So, let's start with direct. Okay. So, on direct, uh, especially in a fire, uh, investigation case, what, uh, typically you're going to do is, first of all, the attorney that be doing the direct. So if you're doing a criminal investigation, that'll be the prosecutor and the prosecutor will first lay a foundation for your expertise because you have to have, minimum qualifications to be able to testify as an expert. And so that's done by going through your background training and experience, that qualifies you to render these opinions. So, we would talk about, any formal education you have. So like for. Chastity, we'd ask you about your bachelors, what you had to do to achieve that, then your specialized training for, firefighting generally, then your fire investigation training, how many fires you've investigated, if you do any teaching, if you're a member of any professional associations. So, it's important to. be able to give the person who's calling you a good CV. That's pretty detailed about all of your training and experience. So then, they can ask you about it. And, uh, the more you have, the better, you know, you look, but even if it's your first fire, you have, uh, You are qualified to testify because you are testifying. So just for my mom, you said the word CV. She will not know what that is. Could you break that down real quick? Sure. So, kind of like your resume. You list on there your, CV. How many years you've been doing it, your, education, your training, and then your experience, how many fires you've investigated, any times you've, testified in court, things like that. So that, whoever's looking at it will know, okay, this person is qualified. So when you go to cross examination, You have a little more latitude as an attorney on the way that you can approach or ask questions. Right. So on direct, you have to ask really open ended questions. You can't lead the witness. So, if you're leading, that's more question that usually calls for just a yes or no answer, asking the witness to agree or not agree with you. the open ended question, on direct is really to get you to tell the story of what happened. So, we'll talk about how you arrived you What did you see? What did you hear? What did you do? and did you come to any conclusions? How did you get there? Et cetera. but on cross, it is much more, adversarial because they, are essentially trying to, take apart is maybe too strong of a word, but they are, definitely trying to poke holes in your testimony. And so they do that by either questioning your credentials. or your investigation. So they could compare your credentials to their defense expert. they could say, well, my defense expert is a certified fire investigator while the prosecution's expert is, you know, a public fire investigator who's been on the job for five years doing investigation. so that's one of the things they can compare, And then they'll go through your investigation. They'll point out everything that they think you didn't do and should have. they will pull apart your conclusions. a lot of times their expert will have given them questions to ask you in areas, where they want to hit you hard on. So, it's important to make sure that you can recognize any weaknesses that you may have in your investigation and bring those up with your attorney. Who's questioning you on direct before you actually take the stand. So if I was one of your fire investigators in the area you work and I asked for a meeting, would you take it? Absolutely. And I'd say, Hey, this is all my strong suits. are strong facts in the case. Here's where it may be open for some challenges. Here's the questions that you should ask me, or can I help you guide like that, or just make you aware of areas that, because every case has some area of that can be maybe attacked or isn't the strongest part of the case. Right. And for a prosecutor who may not necessarily be super familiar with arson cases, because most of the time the case, unless it's a super serious, If you have a specially assigned arson case, um, that will have one prosecutor throughout, you will have one prosecutor handling the preliminary hearing. And they probably have 10 other preliminary hearings that day, none of which are arson. They probably have never seen an arson case. So they may have a script that says, okay, here, ask these questions, but they're just very general. So if you're able to talk to your prosecutor ahead of time and say, you know, I made this, there was this error. Or there's a particular error in the report, or I did this, but I could have done it differently. This is where I may be challenged, then at least you can alert them, uh, ahead of time. And I'm sure that your prosecutor will then ask you, you know, how do you think we can, uh, minimize it because a lot of times if I know there's a bad fact in there, I will bring it out on direct so that it takes a lot of the sting out of what the defense attorney is going to do. So if I know that you, um, didn't collect item of evidence incorrectly, let's say, and we'll talk about the evidence you collected. And now, um, you know, investigator Coleman about this one particular piece of evidence, uh, here's a photo of it. It appears to look different from the other evidence cans. Can you tell me about that? And then you'll discuss why, what happened with it. Um, and so then it's not like a big You know, Perry Mason moment by the time it gets to, uh, the defense attorney who's crossing you. And, um, so he doesn't get that, like, you know, you can't handle the truth moment. So that's actually really smart. I have so many questions off that, but I guess you'd mentioned, well, just a preliminary, can you go through for, uh, the newer investigator and arraignment, the prelim and then trial and what the differences would be. And I know we can only really speak to California. Shirts. We have separate, I mean, I don't know if the timelines are the same, like, how many days, like 10 days for the prelim. I have a quick question before that about what she just said. so, would you say that, cause this is an ego driven community, all of us. Right, yeah. So, Would you say that it's smarter to point out things that you know you did wrong or you know you slipped up on in the investigation to take out that sting or are there certain things you would say that you would pick out? Now I would be very upfront with the attorney and think you know, tell them these are the mistakes that I made. Now, ideally you, have enough experience and you've taken, you know, the requisite amount of classes to know what steps you need to follow to do a complete and accurate investigation. So you know how to properly collect your evidence, you know how to properly seal it. you know how to create hypotheses and eliminate, until you can, Get to one that you can't eliminate based on the scientific method. But we all make mistakes. There's always some inadvertence. Your camera may have malfunctioned and the numbering on the photos is way off. the defense may want to portray that as something, or hiding evidence, but if I can get on direct and say, now you took some photos. Did you have any difficulty with your camera? And then you could say, yes, it was malfunctioning. The numbering of the photos is wrong, but all of the photos that were taken have been provided. What's the defense attorney going to say? So it's good to iron out the mistakes in the direct and just point that out on your own. Usually. Yes. So could you just explain for the new investigator, a Raymond, a prelim, and then the trial. So they know that. What happens once we make the arrest a whole process begins, right? And we're not really needed till the prelim, but go ahead, right? And you know, there are a lot of varying time tables and things about when certain things have to be done So and they're very nuanced so I won't necessarily go into those specifics But essentially after the person is arrested if they're in custody They're brought before the court within 48 hours and for an arraignment, which is where they are advised of the charges against them. and they are appointed an attorney if they, didn't hire one for themselves. And then their, bail is discussed, and set. And that's it. The defendant will often enter a plea. Usually it's not guilty. it is very rare that cases will actually resolve at arraignment. So just because they plea not guilty at arraignment doesn't mean a whole lot. and then from there, the case will get set for preliminary hearing. At least this is for felony cases. And the preliminary hearing is just a probable, probable cause hearing. Is there enough evidence for the case to be held over for trial? So it's just a more likely than not standard. It's definitely not the high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that's for trial. So, most often your investigator will come in and testify to, sort of a overview of their investigation. It doesn't necessarily get into as much detail as you would at trial, just some basics on your qualifications. if there are any other witnesses that are needed, they would testify too. And then, you know, the prelim doesn't generally take that long. if the judge finds there's enough evidence, then it's called, it's held to answer and then it will go to a trial court. generally, and then from there, you know, try to resolve it. If you can resolve it great and pleads, no one needs to go back to court. If it has to go to trial, then, it'll get set for trial. it may take a while to get there. And then that's when the investigator would come and testify in great detail, about the investigation. We will have exhibits, you know, photos, videos, recordings, anything like that. that or civilian witnesses. They would also all testify at trial and then it'll be up to the jury to determine whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Now here in California, and we can only really speak to California. Has the ability now to hire a subject matter expert in this, which would be another fire investigator to evaluate your report that the public fire investigators report to see if in fact it did follow the scientific method if it was complete and concise or if there was any errors. And then that, that subject matter expert will also be, asked to come up to the stand and then give his opinion of your report. Right. If his opinion of your report is helpful to the defense. Correct. I think, I, you know, it, it would be, sort of not doing their due diligence if they didn't have a subject matter expert review your report in the investigation. And I would say probably nine times out of 10. They say, I can't really find anything in this report that is something that you would They may want to challenge them on in court. They may, might give them some questions to ask, maybe. But, their testimony likely would not be needed. So, that's the point I wanted to go to. If the defense attorney is asking you questions, because a lot of times I'll talk to the students, and their like. Well yeah, the attorneys and the judge know about this. And I'm like, no they don't. Like, they may have done a human trafficking case. sexual assault case, domestic violence case, this is just, they don't know, they're looking to the subject matter expert, and unfortunately, you're it. The student's like, what? I'm like, yeah, you're the subject matter expert. So the attorney on the defense side is not going to know what to ask you They're going to be getting that from another subject matter expert based on what your report is lacking or not lacking Whatever and they'll ask those questions from another subject matter expert. Am I correct on that? Yes, and now there are some defense attorneys who specialize in fire Kate fire investigation cases and so they may have more knowledge like raquel she Would hire an expert, but she would be able, I think, to effectively cross examine an investigator without, an expert reviewing the report. but, you know, a lot of times, the, especially the public defenders, they have huge caseloads, and they probably have five different hearings that day with five different clients. so the chances that they. know the ins and outs of fire investigation are extremely low because you're right. They're handling every type of case. So, they will have, they'll know what the elements of the offense are. And so they will see, you know, did you testify to, each of those things? and. You know, I mean, you have a public defenders and defense attorneys who aren't fire specialists, cross examine you and you know, what kind of things do they ask you? Well, I'll be honest, I've been doing this 25, 26 years, just in fire investigation. I've never really had to go to trial. So my questions are pretty basic because you know, when I originally started this, you needed to have testified in court and I was so frustrated that I never testified because you need that to become an IAAI cert or any kind of certification. And I was really upset. But as time went on, they said, well, actually, if you don't go to court, that means you've done some good reports. Yes. And so I'm like, oh, well now, now it's a good thing, but all my level of experience is based on preliminary questions. What, so my understanding is that really the court has to show three things. You had the jurisdiction to do the investigation. You had probable cause to arrest the person. And then how did you correctly ID this as the person? And once that burden's met, then it's like you say, they're, they're held to answer, right? Right. So the questions I basically get is really, I noticed that the public defenders here, And I swear they must grab a, like a notebook and go arson and they open it and they follow a script because it's kind of the same thing, but they're always challenged me on, well, did you violated my, client's Miranda rights? I don't know if that's a go to move. Uh, what do you, yeah, it's pretty standard in any case. There are, you know, certain, areas that are generally open, for cross examination in most cases that are criminal. You know, there was no probable cause for the arrest. there was an illegal search. You didn't properly Mirandize my client. or. And here's how they'll come at me at that. Investigator Coleman, when you were, uh, questioning my client. Where was he? Well, he was sitting down on the curb and he was playing, with a rock, drawing his name in dirt. How many, investigators and law enforcement was around him? Well, it was just me and my partner. The other law enforcement had stepped away. Did you have your gun exposed? No, we wear this, um, a BDU, which covers the gun. did, where was your vehicle parked? It was parked behind me. Were your lights on? So he's trying to get, like, to make an argument, like, he didn't feel free to go. But I'm like, no, he was, his hands were, he wasn't, he was just detained. He was playing with a rock and he was answering my questions and they're always doing that. So I, I think that must be something they're comfortable with because they probably challenge that on a lot of them. They do. Okay. And they will probably usually ask you, um, you know, did you write a report in this case? Yes. Did you review it before you came to court? Is there anything you want to add? Are there any mistakes, et cetera? So that's something I want to add. So that's the other question I get at the end of every time at the end of the, of the uh, prelim. They're like, investigator Coleman, is there anything that you'd want to change in this report? And I'm like, Oh man, cause I know attorneys don't ask questions unless they know the answer to it. But I'm like, no, it's fine. But Raquel and both of you have said that's just a standardized question they ask at the end. Kind of a cleanup. Yeah. Yeah. Although I've seen a lot of them ask it as sort of their preliminary. question, just to, I don't know, lay the foundation for your report or whatever, so then they can actually ask you questions about it. Because once you say, no, there's nothing I want to change, then you're kind of locked into that. And then they'll start looking at your report and asking you questions about what's in there. So sometimes I'll admit like, Oh, you know what? The date on the first page is a correct date. Unfortunately, I have a clerical error on the second page where I put the date was the day before. And they'll be like, Oh, is there anything else? No, there's not. So I, I'm just forthcoming with it and it is a clerical error. Like, you know, it goes through all these reviews, but sometimes you don't catch it. But yeah, I'm just like, eh, no, I messed that up. And that, but that's something that people understand, um, you know, and it's not a big deal. So if there's a typo in your report or you put the wrong date or something, just, just tell them and make sure you tell the DA ahead of time too. Yeah, did you have a question Jess? It'll come back eventually, but I don't remember I was like I was just thinking in my head because that happened and it's such an ADHD thing that we should start saying ADHD every time we have an ADHD moment because people relate to that I get so many comments about the ADHD aspect of the podcast. So We should start doing that. But anyway, continue. So that's funny. Oh no, I don't want to get off subject. I'll tell you guys later. It's way off subject. Okay. So, the other question I've been getting, oddly enough, even in prelims, and I'd love to get your opinion, is I'm getting asked about, not directly, but it's implied, confirmation bias. do you see that coming in more or have you guys always known about it or is it just more of a trend that people are understanding how to use or question? I think bias is definitely, becoming a better known, concept. I think there's a lot of research that's, been done. ongoing about the concept of bias, you know, confirmation bias, especially in investigations. And so I think it's definitely now coming to the forefront and, especially with wrongful convictions, now that more of them are, coming to light, you know, You know, you can go back and see, you know, some bias may have contributed to this wrongful conviction. and I know Raquel does a great job. Training about bias. so maybe for another episode you could have her on to talk about bias I would love to have her on with that you and then Nicole Brewer out of Oregon Yes, she wrote this great paper. She was actually I double AI investigator of the year I think a year ago or two years ago And, Raquel and I met her when we went and taught a class up in Oregon and she's very well educated, she's a fire investigator, I think she's retired, she's only doing private work now, but she wrote a really good paper on it and has a much deeper understanding, but I think we should maybe just demystify bias because when you originally hear bias, And I did the same thing. My mind went to racist, like, Oh, you don't like a certain group or you have a prejudice. And I'm like, no, I didn't like, why are you bringing this up? But the, once you dig into it, we all have biases. Right. Absolutely. and they can be obvious, you know, like you said, biased against a certain group or a certain person or occupation, but I think a lot of times it's much more subtle than that's not at all what we're talking about, right? We're talking about aspects of your investigation that might lead you to a certain conclusion because that's what you We're looking for here's a great example that I use in my class and it's from another person. So I'm, I'm stealing this from the material, but if I tell you both, don't think of an elephant, what are you thinking about an elephant? Okay. So your brain doesn't recognize the don't it can't. Yeah. So if I pull up scene, uh, pull up on scene and they say, my husband started this fire, I'm already thinking arson, even though. It could be totally wrong and your mind may perceive stuff and if you have an expectation and or a confirmation bias, meaning I'm only looking for things that support this idea that was planning in my head. That's kind of what it is, or if you have expectation bias, well, I'm expecting to see things, uh, lead me to a hypothesis and conclusion of arson. Yeah. Then that's what it does. And we don't know how subtle is. And like I said, six years ago, I'm like, what is this? This is what are we doing? That's why it's so important to be trained on that. Because when you said that, my brain automatically went, all right, we'll prove the opposite. I need to, I need to disprove myself. I need to like, so when you're trained in the disproving of it, even if you do get those witness statements before you start your inspection, which with me sometimes has to happen because they leave or something like that. Um, we had to, we were trained in school to disprove whatever we've been told or disprove what we're thinking. So I walk in a room and one of the other biases is Alright, the most damage, that's where the origin is. And you have to disprove yourself on that because that's not always the case. So it's like, it's good to be trained in the disproving of it instead of thinking, alright, that's all I'm going to see now because that's what I've been told. That's a really good point. And I think the key word is train. We're all taught in these classes, like you have to disprove your hypothesis. And some people don't understand what that means. They can't wrap their head around it. But if we show them and we were like, look, you just have to keep trying to disprove it. And once you can't, when you get up on the stand and if a defense attorney comes at you, you've already looked at all the stuff that they can possibly throw at you and be like, yeah, that's, I considered that. That's a, that's a great way to look at it. But unfortunately, For you, we were able to disprove it. And here's how you're much more confident on the stand. That's that's good. Yeah. And I think too, if you can, give yourself as much supporting evidence to back up your opinion. So take those photographs that show no damage, you know, say I'm going to rule out electrical. So here are the photographs of this outlet. I took it out so you could see whether or not there's damage inside the outlet. And so we could see that there's no damage inside or out. So therefore I could eliminate electrical. So it's important not just to take photos and take evidence of, things that support your hypotheses, but also things that you use to,,disprove other hypotheses. So I know the case that you use in our class. At the end, one of the statements or challenges you made to the subject matter expert for the defense was like, isn't it true you're held, to a code of ethics in your organization and will be very big just for reasons. And you said you have to approach it unbiased. And the response back from the investigator was like, they didn't understand that order where what do you mean? I don't even know what you mean by unbiased. Was my reading that right? Yeah. Yeah. And, I mean, I think the witness was being a little intentionally evasive at that point. but it's right there in the code of ethics. And I showed it, to them as an exhibit. And I pointed out exactly where it says you will not align yourselves with individuals, whose goals are inconsistent with an unbiased investigation. and. The expert actually admitted that they were not conducting an unbiased investigation, which I think If that were in front of a jury, this was just a preliminary hearing, I think that would be extremely hurtful to the, whoever called that person as a witness. So, the investigator, if I'm remembering correctly, actually said, what do you mean? Unbiased, but do you think the investigator was just being coy or argumentative or yeah? Well that what the investigator said was I don't know where you're getting unbiased investigation from which was why then I You know had a printout of the code of ethics marked it as an exhibit brought it up to show the expert Here's where i'm getting it from and then that was when there was an admission that in fact, they were not doing an unbiased investigation based on Things that they had previously testified about like 1033 says you shall take notes and photographs and things and the investigator Testified. No, I didn't feel the need to take notes. Stop it right now. Oh my gosh I want to claw my eyes out. Yeah, we actually went back and forth a little about the definition of shall So, you know, like even if it's just a couple sentences take notes, right? I think Yeah, so it really ultimately did not help Their cause and it turns out at the end of the preliminary hearing the judge actually found that expert to not be credible Now. Does that stay with the investigator forever? Absolutely, and how would that present itself in future cases or even seeking future employment as a subject matter expert in? in the private side well in My practice, as a prosecutor, I always look for transcripts of that expert witness testifying in other cases. and in many prosecutor's office, there's like a, database of, transcripts of expert witnesses who have testified in, Our cases before and so they're all uploaded. So you can just search by the name of the expert and you'll be able to see what they've given opinions on before. So if someone. Looked for a transcript of this particular expert. They would see that the court actually found on the record that they were not credible. that would be probably question number one was have you ever been found to not be credible by a court when you've. Testify as an expert witness. And what are they going to say? They're going to say yes. And, you know, pretty much lose all credibility or they're going to say no. And then I bust out a copy of the transcript and then confront them with it. And it's just very, that's a mess. Yeah. It's awful. Do your job people. Yeah. I just don't, don't do shady business. Just admit that. You know, things don't try to dance around the issue, you know, if you didn't take notes and make, you didn't take notes. And so, yes, I, I did not follow that portion of 1033. Do you feel that sometimes that subject matter experts, especially on the defense side is trying to be an advocate for that person or that client when really they're there to evaluate the report for any inaccuracies or did they completely follow the scientific method or did they completely or thoroughly. run their hypothesis and try and disprove it or, or can you tell, I mean, I, you can't speak to that person's intent, but what did you feel was occurring? I can tell you that the experienced experts, the ones who are very intellectually honest, just have been doing it for a long time. They're very upfront. You know, this was the scope of my work. I read this report. Obviously if I didn't have anything, helpful to the defense, to say I wouldn't be testifying. So obviously there's, you know, something I have to offer. But I think if they are not as experienced, or, you know, for whatever reason, some do tend to come off as an advocate for, the side that called them when really your job as an investigator and it's in the code of ethics is to find the truth. You are truth seekers, not case makers. and so, you know, I think whether you're testifying for the prosecution or the defense or plaintiff or defense, you know, always keep in mind your job is to find the truth and you, when you testify, you also swear to tell the truth. So, if you keep that in the forefront of your mind and just go into, any investigation or taking any, Private work, as a expert for the defense, you just keep in mind that you're there to do an honest, truthful investigation. Can I approach you on some subject matter experts that you've gone up against for the defense have done, they've indicated they've done research on certain things? And then when you challenge them and you ask them, where did you perform this research? What are some of the craziest answers you've got? And I'm speaking of one that it's in my head that you told me about. and that's really the only one I can think of. this person said that, they did some research, and, in their research, they gave, an opinion. And I said, well, you know, where did Where did you come up with, that research? Well, I can't pinpoint you directly to the research, but I research things all the time. And I said, yeah. And I said, well, where do you research things? and that person said the internet, don't ever cite the internet as a source of your research. Oh my God. Yeah. That was just, Just the internet? The internet. And so my follow up question was, so if I went on the internet, while you were testifying on direct and looked up the same information and got, a response that was essentially the opposite of what your research, concluded, my, opinion would be about as good as yours, right? And they actually agreed. Oh, my God. Yeah. I didn't know. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. What a good argument back though. Good job. Thanks. Yeah, it was, it was really stressful because I had never dealt with a fire investigator before. And basically, you know, very, good, who someone who is now a good friend, was recommended, by one of the arson prosecutors in our office to, you know, talk to me, over lunch. He was very generous with his time and, sort of gave me a fire investigation one ABC and about, you know, an hour over lunch. and I was able to go in there and at least muddle through the, the cross examination. But yeah, it was, it was something very, that's something wild. Okay. You know, in typical Scott Coleman style, we just jumped right into this. And we didn't discuss how you know Lauren, how I know Lauren, we didn't discuss Lauren's background, why she's a lawyer, how'd she get into this, like we didn't do any of that. Can I blame it on ADHD? ADHD! So, we're gonna get into that now I think, yeah. Okay, well, should we, I think we met first, Lauren and I. I think we start with who Lauren is first, and then we get into how we know her. Oh, okay. so I have my bachelor's degree in biology. and I was absolutely certain I was going to go to medical school all through, you know, like ever. And then I got to my senior year of college and was like, eh, I don't know if I really want to do medical school. So, um, my, you know, now my husband got into medical school in San Diego. So we moved down there and I tried to figure out what to do with my life. and I have a lot of, lawyers in my family and judges. And, so I, Said, okay, you know, I'll give in and, and go into the family business, so to say. So I went to law school, graduated, and was, uh, admitted to California State Bar in 2006. and then I was hired by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in 2007, and I worked there for almost 17 years. Wow. And, yeah, prosecuted. all kinds of cases, all types of felonies. I was in major narcotics for a few years, which is where I first, had some experience with fire and arson because I was doing drug labs and those tend to blow up and, unfortunately people are killed. So I would have those cases. So that's really where I, had to start learning about it. And so the case that we were talking about where, I learned about fire basically over lunch, that was a lab case. and so that was my first experience with fire. Although actually, really my first experience with an arson case was my first year as a DA and I was doing a preliminary hearing. It was an arson case and I had the deputy or whoever was up there testifying and I forgot to ask him if anything burned. Which is, is a pretty big element of arson, but luckily the judge has the question for me because, you know, she, she just was over it and wanted to be done. And so I did not look at another fire case after that. Why is that such a big question that you have to ask in the beginning? Well, you have to, right. You have to prove that there's something actually burned. Okay. As opposed to just an explosion with no fire. Yeah. So yeah, that I didn't get off to a great start with fire, but now look at you now. and so I was, hired by the, attorney general's office, California in March of this year. 2024. Yeah. And, it's just complete change of pace. I work in the appeals writs and trials division. So I do a lot of, appeals, after someone's convicted of a felony, they, appeal the conviction. And so it comes to me and I look at the record of the trial and all that. Basically respond to their contentions on appeal. I get to argue before the court of appeal. I still do some trial work And yeah, I I love it. It's completely different from what I was doing for 17 years and it's a great change. I love the people. I love everything that i'm doing So it was a hard move to make but i'm really really glad I did so after that, prelim where I questioned the fire investigator, the, investigator who had helped me said, Hey, you know, there's this conference, you should come up. I think it, you'd better come up. So, I went up to the CCAI conference in, I don't remember what year, and all of a sudden I was like surrounded by the board of directors and they're like introducing them to me, introducing themselves and, you know, Oh, we're so glad you're here. And, you know, et cetera, everyone was amazing and very gracious. And, I think Todd, either at that one or the following one. and so that's how I met Scott,'cause he was part of that board of directors. Oh, I didn't know that's how you guys met. So who, off the record, who's the investigator that brought you? Oh, Rob Rappaport. Oh, okay. See, I had no idea that was the connection. Oh yeah, So, yeah, I met you and we had a real good time at the conference. I enjoyed your class. At the time, it was on a BHO lab, butane honey oil lab, and we ended up going out to dinner with a bunch of us and I said, Hey, I'm teaching these classes. I have a defense attorney, I'd love to have a prosecutor, something you're interested in. And you're like, sure. And then I wasn't sure how you and Raquel would get along to be honest, but what I found is both you and her put finding the truth. at the forefront. Yes. And so we've actually made a pretty good little program together. We don't always disagree or we don't always agree on things, but we have the ability to argue it out and it actually turns out to be pretty fun. Yeah. Actually, so for our conference in February, California Conference of Arson Investigators, you will be teaching again. I will. On not just the BHL lab, but now how it's These professional extrication labs that are now moved from a house into warehouses, correct? Correct. Um, and so I have a, um, training that, uh, I did with, uh, Elizabeth Buck, who is a fire investigator, a professional engineer, chemist. All around amazing woman who lives in Michigan, uh, and her, one of her areas of expertise is actually going to, uh, facilities that want to start operating as legal cannabis extraction, uh, and processing facilities, uh, so that she reviews their plans, their, uh, all of their safety systems and everything. And she actually can give the thumbs up or down with the state, uh, As to whether they are running or able to run their operations safely and up to code and according to the law. So I actually went on a tour with her of one of the biggest facilities in Michigan. I mean, it legal. Legal. Yes. It was legal. and besides the, just the, you know, processing the plant material to extract the oil, it was like a full on candy factory where they were making all of these edibles. You would never know what they were actually making. I mean, it didn't smell like a drug lab in there. It was professional all the way clean. it was It was just really, really interesting to see, and we got to see just these millions of dollars that they put into, this professional equipment and, you know, the ones who want to do it the right way will invest the money in the time that it takes to do it the right way. As an investigator, then the point of this class. Okay, what a, what a treat. You'll have someone who's, knowledge base knows what each piece of equipment does, how to identify it, and how it should be installed correctly. And then you'll have the legal aspect from you, like, well, here's ways that if you have an explosion or an injury or something in here, you That, you can prosecute it specifically more for the illegal labs that try and set it up, right? And that that is my focus. It would be, these labs that are being set up in these giant warehouse spaces with, expensive equipment, but that they don't bother to have anyone inspect, to make sure that there's no, flammable liquid vapors leaking out into, the space inside the warehouse. so they set up these labs that are not safe at all. The people who are running them don't know anything about what they're doing. They're basically told, here's what you're going to do. And it's basically, you know, dump this in here, push a button, type things. They don't have any idea how the machines work. And then at some point something goes wrong and the whole thing blows up and burns down. And we've had, One of the more recent incidents in, the city of Irwindale, four people died, in a lab, illegal lab setting. So, the cases have definitely gone from people doing it in their homes and just kind of damaging their own homes now to being these large scale operations where people are losing their lives. And so I know you work at LA County at the time, but after we started hanging out and teaching. We had some large commercial type, extraction labs here in Orange County and one of them resulted in an explosion that threw back some firefighters, not from my specific agency, but neighboring agencies and injured them. So it is everywhere and they, they work fine until they don't. Right. And Elizabeth just has one where we can show video of that happened in Michigan where they were storing, Mass quantities of butane and things like that and that place went up and the cylinders and things of butane were just being fired off like rockets and A bystander who was half a mile away was actually killed when he was hit with one of those projectile Cans. Oh my gosh. Yeah, and that's within the last I'd say six months. That's terrifying. Yes So if you're, here in California, please attend, just for that, I think it's going to be a four hour class, correct? I think so, yes. That's February 2025. Correct. So now that's awesome. I'm so excited. So we now know how we met and how we hang out and up to date. I think we've trained over 300 fire investigators in the legal proceedings section of, the training. And how did you meet Lauren? I know it's through you somehow, but I don't remember the first time we ever met. Yeah, I don't either. We've just kind of just. Known each other. Yeah, it's like I can't remember a Specific like I think I might remember. I don't know when I didn't and did know her I think we were training in Newport Beach and you were in the class Just taking it because you were off on like you had some foot surgery. Do you remember that? I do remember that but she that was not where I met her. Oh, no that for sure. Oh, okay Yeah, I'm pretty sure I may have met you at that first CCII conference Maybe. Or one of those. I could have been there for, with EFI or something. Well, it'll remain a mystery. I've been going to CCAI since 2018. Okay. Yeah, honestly, it's like, it feels like I've just known you. Yeah. Which is a good, good sign. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What I would like to do is, now that we've had an episode with you from the legal desk, if you're open to it, and I'd love to get Raquel in here so we can get both sides, I'll ask if Our listeners, if they have like not legal questions, like how do I see my mom or something, but if they have like, Hey, um, what's a typical, line of questioning I may get from my prosecutor or whatever, you guys can send them to Chassie and I either through email. Um, or you can go into any of our socials, we respond to that and we can read them when you and Raquel are here and get both sides and then how she may attack it and how you may, you know, redirect and try and shore us up. Things like that. Would that be cool? You can, you can send it in through, you can do it, a five star review and ask a question through that because that helps us out. Um, you can do it on LinkedIn, you can do it on Facebook, you can do it on Instagram, you can do it on Twitter, you can do it on Instagram. I haven't really been checking Tik Tok, so maybe not on there, but, um, and then if you have our contact directly, please feel free to reach out and any questions that you all have were free to answer. Do we still have the podcast email, yes. If you want to email a bunch of questions in, you can send them podcast at InFocusFire. com Yes. Okay. Um, I got a message on Instagram today from a girl in Orange County who, she was like, I, I listened to your podcast and I have a degree in criminology and I'm actually thinking about going into fire investigation. Would you mind if we connected? She's like close to my age. And I was like, heck yeah. So. Podcast is doing good things. Nice. Well, speaking of that, uh, I turned on this option on our, podcast called Fan Mail. Mm hmm. I didn't know what it was. I'm like, well, yeah, people want to send us mail. You have fans. Well, we got one. And so I tried to reply to it. It doesn't let you reply. You have to, you have to announce it on your podcast because I'm like, oh yeah. But the question was, um, and it's in our program. Can you pull up the fan mail real quick? Yeah. Yeah. So I got it right here. from Pennsylvania labeled. Oh, they signed it with DB. So whoever DB is. Um, it says, Scott and Chastity, I'm a new listener and I wanted to say thank you and great job. I look forward to many more episodes. Can you tell me what AI application that you use with regard to your reports? Thank you. Stay safe and be well. Signed. D. B. That's very mysterious. It's like XOXO, Gossip Girl. so we're actually funny. We just got back from teaching a class in Ohio on how we use AI. Yeah. and I thought it went real well. But some of this stuff, I mean, it's a whole episode, but I can just tell you very briefly How we use it, but I'm gonna start with a caveat. And so the last time we taught it in California I specifically asked the DA from LA County to come with me because when I speak about having AI help you with reports Most of the time the investigators here have AI write your report So I just want to go straight up and tell you Do not let it write your report. Wait, people are letting it write their report. That's what they're hearing from my class. Oh, okay. And they're like, oh, it's writing your report? I'm like, no, I just literally showed you it doesn't write your report. They're hearing what they want to hear. Because, let's be honest, the bottleneck or the pain point in a fire investigation is writing the report. If you're new, you don't know how to articulate it. If you're old like me, you're like, I have to write so many words. Yeah. So I, I'll tell you briefly what I did and we'll probably do a future episode, but, what I do is I'll dictate my report on the scene while I'm doing it into my department issued phone. So that's key. Only use stuff that you're willing to let get subpoenaed and taken away for discovery. And so I'll use word or Google docs. For example, I pull up on scene, I meet with the incident commander, he says, yes, I want you to do origin and cause. And then I'll, I'll go and I won't talk to anybody else. And so that's the way to get rid of the confirmation bias thing. And then I'll start at the front and, I'll open Google Docs or Google Word. So once I've done that, I'm at, I go in and I'll open it up, click it on my phone, and then it'll automatically dictate it for you. So I'll say I approached the scene from the front or the alpha side, an examination of the exterior revealed no signs of fire damage. The front had four windows and one door. The door was open during my scene examination and the windows were locked. Smoke staining could be observed on the interior of the front windows, period. And then I'll do that with all sides and walk in my interior and everything. How I currently use AI now, when I get back to the station or my headquarters, I will take that and I will put it into CLOD or chat GPT and I will say, please rewrite with correct grammar, do not change my words. And so we'll now we'll write it and capitalize what needs to be capitalized, rewrite, rewrite it with correct grammar, punctuation, all that. I'll then take that and put that into my report. And then once my report's done, I go through. And I evaluate it for any errors or, or conciseness that needs to be in there. Like So you're reviewing the AI's reviewed report. Yeah, it's not writing my report. Yeah. It doesn't do that. It It, it just cleans it up for me. So because it has a lot of mistakes. So if I say I observed mass loss on the door, oftentimes it calls it math loss with a list. So there's these things and it won't write it for you. It's getting smarter every day, but there are some programs that you and I are looking at right now. Chastity. That can embed it all and put it into your actual Word template report format. But it's still not writing it for you. Your content is what you're giving it, but it's formatting it for you. But it can evaluate it or, because it doesn't understand fire investigation. But like I said, it's getting better every day. Yeah. So it can maybe assist you on like, how do I reword this? It may help you, but it's just don't let it write you. So I use Clod or ChatGPT. Which one are you using? I use Clod all the time. Yeah. And like we said in an earlier episode, if you're doing actual research, I would go to Perplexity AI because what it does is it now, well, it's always done it. We'll bring up where it's getting the sources from. So if I say, describe flashover, what is a flashover in a FHIR? It'll tell you, and then it will say, here's why I know what it is, and it will put all the articles, videos, anything it used to come up with that opinion, so you can look at it and source it. Um, and the other thing as of now when we're talking, CHAT GPT has now put a search bar in. So, it, you can now use it like Google, you search, it is, and I really liked it and it's a much easier to read format than Google currently, as we're talking, it's changing so fast. So, I'm going to say as of this episode, the problem is I asked it, where are you getting your information? And it said, Oh, from Bing. So if you're a search guy like me. Bing is, doesn't have the dominance over Google, but Google's so bloated with ads and that, yeah. So it does give you good information and it puts it in a much more easier to read format. But I'm a Google fanboy, not so much Bing. Yeah, Bing just hasn't got it figured out yet, in my opinion, but No, but if they do, with ChatGPT, it may take over the dominance that Google currently shares. So, that's a great question. We'll probably do an episode on it. Uh, but Chassie and I are currently working with this company to try and see if we can roll out, or they can roll out this, uh, report format. Yeah, trying to help them out, just a little. Yeah. Okay, We're at an hour. Bada bing, bada boom. Okay. And closing. Oh, wait. Um, we gotta, she's got to pick a word. Oh, so Lauren, we usually do a segment called, can you use it in a sentence? It's a word that maybe we may not be familiar with, and you know, like in a spelling bee when they're not sure, they're like, can you use it in a sentence? This is Scott's favorite segment ever. Well, I just like that we're exposing people to different words. It's fun. Okay. So I'm first going to read the word from last episode. So. I left you with I L R. And I L R. If you haven't figured it out already, and I'm sure most of you all have is ignitable liquid. Residue. And that's the portion of an ignitable liquid. That remains after a fire. So. A lot of people call it accelerant. Or they just say gasoline or something. Like that, but the commonly used term right now, Is. I L our people are using that instead of accelerant. So, all right, I'm gonna turn it over to Lauren. Is there a word that you think would be good for an investigator to know? You know what would be a good word? Indicia. Oh, you know what? You should. I was trying to think of another word. Can you tell me why you choose that word? Because that is a word that Scott recently learned the definition of during a preliminary hearing. I gotta tell you, I don't know what it is, so I'm excited. I was asked it by the defense. And I could not answer it. I thought I knew what it was. But I know we do enough of these trainings that if you don't know, don't answer. And the judge is like, Investigator Coleman, can you answer the question? And I look at him. I'm like, I cannot. He says, why not? I don't know what the word means. And I'm glad I didn't answer it because what I thought it was, was totally wrong. I literally think it's so funny because we're so nerdy that we're super excited that like, this is such a good word. And I'm over here like, I can't wait to figure out what it is. So the word will be indicia. Can we spell it? I N D I C I A. Okay, and just, before, yeah. So before we give the answer in the next episode, Chastity, what do you think, I can't answer now because I know, what do you think it might be? Can I have like a small hint? The way I remember it, it's a smaller part of a bigger word, but that's my ADHD brain. Does that make sense to you? It is a smaller part of a bigger word. That's not going to help you though. That doesn't help me at all. I know. I can't even know what realm it's in. Is it fire related? Let me ask, let me ask you the question that was asked to me and see, so I'll use it in a sentence. Okay. Use it in a sentence. Let's go. Investigator Owens. When you looked at my client's area where he lived, did you find any indicia indicating that was his belongings? Thanks. Like proof kind of did I answer that? I did. I asked that correctly. You did. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to leave it there. And like, I think of, of just like, is there any indicators or proof of anything? You should see Scott's face right now. He's very excited. I don't want to get excited because you're onto it, but I don't want the listeners to know he has a very proud face on right now. So we'll come back next episode and tell you what that means. Cause I think I got close. I'll tell you who will know this right away. Law enforcement. Absolutely. Mm. Especially any of them that have done drug cases. Yes. Law enforcement will know it. Firefighters will not. All right, guys. So that's going to be, Don't tell her she has to say bye. Why? Because it's, I don't like that. Why? I was going to say bye anyway. No, that's say bye. But like the way we say bye. Bye. Oh. No, but it's funny because we're introducing them to our tradition. Yeah. Okay. I'll do it. All right. Like we all, I always say it on the air. I do. Cause it's like inclusive. All right. Whenever you are. We have such differing opinions on podcast things. It makes people feel included. Whatever. Go ahead. I'm not going to argue. You argued by saying no. Okay, anyway. All right, guys, that should be in the beginning clip. Yeah. I'll just post that. You argued by saying no. Okay. So, all right, guys, that's the end of episode 18. This has been a sick one. I've had so much fun with this one. Thank you, Lauren, for being here. Of course. Thanks for having me, guys. Thank you so much. I think this will be a good segment from the legal desk. I can't wait to include Raquel in here and we can get a little back and forth. You killed it. I think you've give us, um, a lot of good information. So thank you. So remember that from the legal desk is going to be a reoccurring segment. So make sure you are sending in questions for our next, we don't have a set date for the next from the legal desk. But it is going to be reoccurring. So send us questions. If you have questions about cases that you're on or cases that you've been on that you want to hear from their perspective, we have a defense attorney and a prosecutor here that can answer your questions. So just let us know. Once again, thank you. This was a great episode. Thanks for, providing a bunch of information for our listeners and for me. I learn every time. Uh, but unfortunately, this is where we have to end the episode. And I guess for right now is where we say bye. One, two, three. Bye! disclaimer, the views, opinions, and information expressed in this podcast are those of the individual hosts and guests only, and do not necessarily represent the official positions or views of any organizations or companies with which we are affiliated. While we strive to provide accurate and up to date information, this content is primarily for informational and entertainment purposes. Please consult directly with the appropriate professionals and resources