Spontaneous Human Combustion

GetInTheHole! · 24-09-2011 7:32pm #1

Not even sure if it's relevant on this forum - but does anybody have any thoughts on this?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/coroner-rules-irish-man-died-of-spontaneous-combustion.html

No adequate explanation apparently..

maccored · 24-09-2011 8:08pm

was just about to post the same story - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/irishman-died-from-spontaneous-human-combustion-inquest-finds-16053984.html

maccored · 24-09-2011 8:10pm

i dont think we can say SHB *doesnt* happen - but there is very little information on how such a thing is possible.

stoneill · 24-09-2011 8:13pm

I think what the coroner was getting at that there was no sign of accelerant, no sign of ignition source. The coroner wasn't saying that he was a victim of SHC, but based on the evidence (or lack of) at the scene that this particular case, it would fit into the category of SHC as it didn't fit anywhere else.

maccored · 24-09-2011 8:20pm

“Dr 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.”

sounds like he's saying it as he's 'left with the conclusion' rather than "it would fit into the category of SHC as it didn't fit anywhere else".

enniscorthy · 24-09-2011 10:13pm

interesting story hope to follow it if and when more info unfolds

kylith · 25-09-2011 1:46pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_effect

Basically the human body acts as a big candle with the clothes as a wick and the body fats as the wax.

maccored · 25-09-2011 3:01pm

probably thee most unconvincing explanation ever. like that documentary yer man from iron maiden done where the whole room went alight and they still stuck to the 'wick effect' idea. the wick effect doesnt explain the temperature, the rapid burning, the lack of damage to surroundings nor in fact does it explain how such a thing can actually occur in the first place.

kylith · 25-09-2011 4:40pm

maccored wrote: »

probably thee most unconvincing explanation ever. like that documentary yer man from iron maiden done where the whole room went alight and they still stuck to the 'wick effect' idea. the wick effect doesnt explain the temperature, the rapid burning, the lack of damage to surroundings nor in fact does it explain how such a thing can actually occur in the first place.

The wick effect does explain the temperature and the lack of damage to the surrounding areas. How it can get started is easy enough to explain; a person loses conciousness (alcohol or death, for example) and is set afire by a spark from the hearth or dropping a cigarette on themselves.

I really don't see how you find this less convincing than 'catches fire by magic'.

maccored · 25-09-2011 5:16pm

Catches fire by magic? Are you mad? I agree with the inquest findings in that there currently is no satisfactory explanation. Much better than ignoring the facts like some in this thread are. I wonder if you even read the article .... Doesn't look like you did

kylith · 25-09-2011 7:01pm

maccored wrote: »

Catches fire by magic? Are you mad? I agree with the inquest findings in that there currently is no satisfactory explanation. Much better than ignoring the facts like some in this thread are. I wonder if you even read the article .... Doesn't look like you did

Yes, I did actually. A man was found, burned, next to a fire. Do you really believe that Spontaneous Human Combustion is the best explanation for this?

maccored · 25-09-2011 11:32pm

do you really believe its the wick effect when the guards, firemen and investigators found no source for the combustion?

You cant have the wick effect without something starting it.

One thing to remember btw - its possible to sceptical and have no opinion on it - thats where I am. Its not a case of having to fully believe its SHC or not. 'Dont know' is always an option.

youtube! · 25-09-2011 11:37pm

why do these SHC cases almost if not always involve the person being beside a fireplace?

maccored · 25-09-2011 11:42pm

because most homes have them. and it happened last December. It was very cold that time of year. Plus it was completely ruled out as the cause. you could ask why it always seems to happen at home, in livingrooms - ive no idea why. could be as its usually old people and they tend to spend a lot of time at home. why doesnt it happen in hospitals and retirement homes though? It does point to the fact those places are normally no smoking areas, so that has to factor in somewhere. its just proving it thats the problem. same time it is very rare, so theres not a lot of chance to find out why.

maccored · 25-09-2011 11:47pm

actually that kind of warning could work on cigarette packets - "Could Cause Spontanious Human Combustion".

maccored · 26-09-2011 12:20pm

actually i am incorrect - it has happened in a hospital:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/01/possible-spontaneous-human-combustion-case-in-michigan/

kylith · 26-09-2011 12:27pm

maccored wrote: »

do you really believe its the wick effect when the guards, firemen and investigators found no source for the combustion?

You cant have the wick effect without something starting it.

One thing to remember btw - its possible to sceptical and have no opinion on it - thats where I am. Its not a case of having to fully believe its SHC or not. 'Dont know' is always an option.

Have you read the article? It's not that they found no source of ignition, especially since he was right next to an open fire, they found no trace of accelerant; i.e. petrol/meths/lighter fluid that would indicate that the body was purposfully destroyed.

If you don't accept that it was the wick effect what's your conjecture?

maccored · 26-09-2011 1:33pm

as i mentioned earlier, "I dont know". Im not afriad to admit that rather than thinking I know everything.

You should ring up that coroner ... tell him he missed the obvious as he obviously doesnt believe the fire has anything to do with it. You though, being an internet warrior, seem to know full well how it happened, from the comfort of your armchair.

Seriously - get in touch with him and give him a good telling off for being stupid.

maccored · 26-09-2011 2:22pm

kylith wrote: »

Have you read the article? It's not that they found no source of ignition, especially since he was right next to an open fire .....

just so its absolutely clear:

An experienced garda crime scene investigator and senior fire officer both told Mr Faherty's inquest in Galway that they could not explain how he came to be burnt to death. Nor had they come across such an event before.
Assistant chief fire officer Gerry O'Malley said fire officers were satisfied that, after a thorough investigation, an open fire in Mr Faherty's fireplace was not the cause of the blaze which led to his death.

You may ring them firemen and tell them to quit their jobs too then. (The coroner's contact details are here btw - http://www.coroners.ie/en/CS/Pages/Coroner%20Contact%20Details#Galway - dont forget to give him a piece of your mind)

kylith · 26-09-2011 4:01pm

maccored wrote: »

just so its absolutely clear:

You may ring them firemen and tell them to quit their jobs too then. (The coroner's contact details are here btw - http://www.coroners.ie/en/CS/Pages/Coroner%20Contact%20Details#Galway - dont forget to give him a piece of your mind)
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Where did I say that the fire was the cause of death? My position is that the fire is the cause of the burning. He could well have died of a heart attack, then caught fire.

maccored · 26-09-2011 6:26pm

I doth giveth upp-ith. You sir are wasting my time.

kylith wrote: »

maccored wrote: »

just so its absolutely clear:

You may ring them firemen and tell them to quit their jobs too then. (The coroner's contact details are here btw - http://www.coroners.ie/en/CS/Pages/Coroner%20Contact%20Details#Galway - dont forget to give him a piece of your mind)
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Where did I say that the fire was the cause of death? My position is that the fire is the cause of the burning. He could well have died of a heart attack, then caught fire.

caseyann · 30-09-2011 4:25pm

I saw one on the tv before about a woman who it happened to in front of her family.
Explanation would be nice as it has been recorded as apparently happening since 1829 first recorded i believe.And they do believe also recorded in the bible.

R.I.P and condolences to his family

caseyann · 14-11-2011 6:18pm

A SECOND case of spontaneous human combustion may have been identified in Ireland.

It comes just months after another Irish coroner ruled that the death of Michael Faherty (76) in Galway was due to this bizarre phenomenon.

Donegal Coroner Dr John Madden said that when he first reviewed the case spontaneous human combustion "did come to mind". But he said it was probably an "urban myth".

The jury returned a verdict of death by fire.

R.I.P condolences to all her family and friends.

I didnt want to add the link.

I would just like to understand why they dont investigate it more.Why they fob it off after two deaths in same manner?
Should be investigating it more.

Fuzzy Clam · 15-11-2011 1:20am

caseyann wrote: »

It comes just months after another Irish coroner ruled that the death of Michael Faherty (76) in Galway was due to this bizarre phenomenon.

Is this the 1st case in Ireland attributed to spontaneous combustion in a coroners report?

Fuzzy Clam · 15-11-2011 1:24am

caseyann wrote: »

I would just like to understand why they dont investigate it more.Why they fob it off after two deaths in same manner?
Should be investigating it more.

What would you expect them to do?
In the absence of witnesses they only have the evidence to go on.

kylith · 15-11-2011 10:01am

caseyann wrote: »

A SECOND case of spontaneous human combustion may have been identified in Ireland.

It comes just months after another Irish coroner ruled that the death of Michael Faherty (76) in Galway was due to this bizarre phenomenon.

Donegal Coroner Dr John Madden said that when he first reviewed the case spontaneous human combustion "did come to mind". But he said it was probably an "urban myth".

The jury returned a verdict of death by fire.

R.I.P condolences to all her family and friends.

I didnt want to add the link.

I would just like to understand why they dont investigate it more.Why they fob it off after two deaths in same manner?
Should be investigating it more.

Could you please post a link, or any other information on this you might have? I don't think anyone will mind since, supposably, you read about it in the paper. It's just that it's impossible to discuss something without some details.

maccored · 15-11-2011 10:06am

a 3 sec google found this:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1111/mclaughline.html

kylith wrote: »

Could you please post a link, or any other information on this you might have? I don't think anyone will mind since, supposably, you read about it in the paper. It's just that it's impossible to discuss something without some details.

kylith · 15-11-2011 11:33am

maccored wrote: »

a 3 sec google found this:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1111/mclaughline.html

From that link

coroner wrote:

"There was little damage to the surrounding area. I believe the clothes acted like a wick on a candle - there was the complete destruction of the body but the fire did not spread," the Coroner said

So, the wick effect then. Terribly sad, but not paranormal.

maccored · 15-11-2011 12:35pm

yeah, the good ole wick effect that doesnt burn anything around it. nice theory, but as unproven as actual shc.

kylith · 15-11-2011 3:38pm

maccored wrote: »

yeah, the good ole wick effect that doesnt burn anything around it. nice theory, but as unproven as actual shc.

Tested and plausible, in fact.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/158853.stm

bbc news wrote:

A pig was used because it closely resembles a human's fat content.

The pig was wrapped in a blanket and a small amount of petrol was poured on it.
After five hours of continuous burning the bones were being destroyed. Dr De Haan said: "The sort of damage here is exactly the same as that from supposed spontaneous human combustion."

maccored · 15-11-2011 8:48pm

if thats the one with yer man from iron maiden burning a pig ..... a fire that burned the whole room down. it just proves fire burns things.

I believe there must have been another cause. three cats were dead - wouldnt that suggest some form of gas leakage? Cats just dont die in threes in a house - and I assume the woman didnt colelct dead cats ... so they died from something. whatever that was - fumes, gas etc - may well have killed the woman concerned.

I think the wick theory really really needs to be properly examined and compared to apparent cases of shc. the two are not the same, plus the wick theory only seems to fit when you have an obvious source and point of ignition. It doesnt explain these things so theres obviously something else missing. Its obviously also not paranormal unless it likes to kill cats as well.

"There was a high level of cyanide in the blood stream and carbon monoxide in the atmosphere, which is not normally there.

i think if we found what causes that, then we'd be more the wiser. (and please dont anyone say 'because of fire'. its obvious there was a fire)

Spontaneous Human Combustion

Comments