So can you, uh, just kind of go through a little bit, um, what your involvement was, what your role was, how did you get into the, uh, investigating the Lyon Street fire, and do- being able to, uh, do such a unique experiment?

Yeah.

There was a, a public defender named, uh, Patrick McGinnis in Jacksonville who was assigned that case, and he went to the prosecutor and said to them, "Look, I know your expert chemist.

I've seen him before.

He's wrong a lot of the time.

You should get the chemistry reviewed." And so the prosecutor called me, and he says, "We got this chemistry from this, uh, multiple fatality fire, and we need you to review it.

The, the state lab said they found gasoline in the samples, and, um, we, we just need a second opinion." And I had seen this guy's work before as well, and so I actually, um, handed the review off to my associate, uh, Laurel Mason, and she looked at it, she said, "John, this doesn't look anything like gasoline." And I said, "Oh, that's what I was afraid of." So I had, uh, 10 copies of, of all the paperwork, in fact, back in those days it was all paper, and mailed it around to my colleagues on the forensic science committee, and they all looked at it, and unanimously they said, "John, this is not gasoline." So I called the prosecutor, I said, "I got bad news for you, because it's, uh, there's no gasoline in these samples." And they said, "Oh, that's, that's not good for the case.

The insurance bar is small and specialized, and those tax, or those lawyers talk to each other." In your years of, you know, reviewing cases, what are some things that you feel is lacking in fire investigation today that can be rectified by fire investigators?

I'm curious how you see that from the organizational lens of not even just the character of the individual, but the character of the organization or the team.

Well, that's kind of what I was alluding to earlier.

Maybe I wasn't even alluding.

I was saying it directly that, you know, too much kissing up and kicking down, right? There isn't a lot of...

two-way dialogue between leaders to assess how suitable they are for leadership.

And that's why I see this as a framework to develop ourselves as leaders, but also a framework as a diagnostic to assess the appropriateness of our leaders.

So I know some small hedge funds and buy-side firms in the finance industry, for example, in contrast to the large investment banks where I spent most of my career that have this sort of a format.

How would you coach someone that is resistant to some of that feedback using their framework?