One mystery solved, and more burning questions arise.
After days of hiding behind a veil of secrecy provided by stumblebum officials in Vallejo, Calif., Nokia has now been identified publicly as the maker of the cell phone that was in a man's pocket when his clothes caught fire and caused him critical burns Jan. 13. The story has received worldwide press attention.
(Friday morning update: More from the fire victim’s attorney and Nokia here … And you can tell the press coverage has run amok when reporters are quoting … uh, me … and the account winds up in 9 newspapers, all with my name misspelled.)
However, Nokia engineers have apparently convinced Vallejo fire investigator William Tweedy to reverse his earlier judgment – unequivocal though it was -- that it was an overheating of the phone enabled by a continuous compression of its buttons that caused the device to ignite. Moreover, Tweedy told me and numerous other reporters that the fire victim's intoxicated state explained why he did not awaken as the phone heated toward ignition. At the time, he ruled out any other possible causes for the fire.
Now he's saying that Nokia has convinced him he was wrong.
From this morning's San Francisco Chronicle:
Under fire department supervision, Nokia's engineers checked the phone's wiring, tested it for short circuits, inserted the existing battery and hit the power button, said Tweedy, who was present during the test.
The phone -- a Nokia 2125i -- turned on.
"The phone didn't short out," Tweedy said. "It didn't overheat. The phone still works even though it's burned ... if the phone had shorted out, it wouldn't have turned on."
Tweedy now says the cause of the fire is unknown and may never be known (the latter certainly being the case if we're depending on William Tweedy to provide the answer).
Meanwhile, sources tell me that the fire victim, 59-year-old Luis Picaso, has retained an attorney who plans to convene a press conference at UC-Davis Medical Center as early as today.
(Update: A press conference will be held this morning at 10 a.m. PST at the Courtyard Marriott at UC Davis Medical Center, according to Atty. Elaine Mandel of Kiesel, Boucher & Larson in Beverly Hills, who says Picaso "was burned when his cell phone caught on fire." Mandel was recently promoted to partner because of her "extraordinary skill in litigating personal injury cases," according to the firm's Web site.)
Perhaps the attorney will announce that she and his client are pleased with the findings of the Nokia experts and subsequent change of heart by fire officials, although that seems even less likely than Tweedy's original explanation for how the phone ignited.
No, the only mystery on the legal side is how long the roster of targets will be for the all-but-inevitable litigation. You can be sure that attorneys for Nokia and the City of Vallejo are on full alert.
It's not possible to overstate how certain Tweedy had been about the phone being the being the ignition point of the fire. He was equally adamant about protecting the name of the manufacturer from being released publicly, telling me it was unfair to single out a particular manufacturer when it could have happened to any cell phone. Why any cell phone? Here's what he said:
"Say you have your cell phone in your pocket and you're leaning up against a chair and you're asleep, and the phone buttons get depressed and phone starts to overheat, you would realize that because you could feel it getting warm in your pocket. If you are intoxicated to the point where you can't feel that or don't realize that's happening, it could be any phone that could (catch fire), not just a specific brand."
"I've got the battery and the battery didn't blow up, nothing like that. I believe that the phone just overheated. It's a 3.2 lithium battery. I can't tell you how long he may have been depressing the buttons. He could have been laying there on the phone for a very long time."
That was then. Now Nokia has him convinced that he was wrong.
More from the Chronicle story:
Tweedy said the fire department called Nokia in because "they offered their electrical engineers to come in and do testing that we can't afford to do."
The investigation is now over, Tweedy said. The original source of the fire will probably remain a mystery.
"He could have been smoking a cigarette, the cigarette fell into his pocket, and it started on fire," said Tweedy. "We don't know that. We weren't there."
William Tweedy wears two hats for the Vallejo Fire Department: He's an on-site fire investigator and public information officer.
What's really clear at this point – perhaps the only thing that is clear in this entire saga – is that the City of Vallejo needs a new on-site fire investigator and a new public information officer.
When not blogging, I am a Network World news editor and write the 'Net Buzz column.
The opinions expressed in this Weblog are those of the writer and may not represent the opinions of Network World.
|
|
Your closing comments are ignorant...
The closing comment of your story shows your ignorance of the world or your incompetence as a writer.
Expecting a Fire Investigator to have intimate knowledge of the workings of modern electronics device is shortsided.
Our world has progressed drastically in technology the last 2 decades and the idea that normal peoples knowledge has followed right along is ludicrous.
Even more ludicrous is the neglegence you showed in suggesting the two officials be replaced for this incident.
Its one thing to report a story, its another to make suggestions that hold no basis.
Regarding my "ignorance"
First, I suggested that one official be fired, not two.
Next, as is perfectly clear from the post, I am suggesting he should be fired not for lacking expertise but instead for telling the whole world -- in no-doubt-about-it terms -- that he did know what caused the fire when he clearly didn't.
Finally, this is a blog. I am expected to and paid to express my opinions.
Thanks for sharing yours.
IMHO
Paul,
Your last paragraph would have been more valid with the disclaimer of "in my opinion". You did a fair amount of reporting and due diligence and then stated an opinion in a factual manner. Ironically, had the fire investigator expressed his report as his opinion rather than "telling the whole world -- in no-doubt-about-it terms" you would not have come to your perfectly clear conclusion.
In my opinion, blame for the incident is most likely to lie with the drunken victim who should be held responsible for his actions which are every bit as unknowable or discernible as the cause of the fire.
Expecting a fire
Expecting a fire investigator to Know the cause before saying that he knows the cause is not to much to expect!
If it's new tech to him/her, there should be questions asked before asigning causes.
Re: fire investigator
The investigator was wrong either way.
He obviously didn't have the evidence and expertise to determine the cause, so he should not have made damaging statements.
fire
I believe the word should be shortsighted, I don't have any idea what "shortsided" is.
This guy is a tard. Cell
This guy is a tard. Cell phones are coated with plastic. Therefore how could a spark ignite his clothing, let alone get beyond a self-contained short. I don't even see why this made it to the news. The tard obviously wants attention.
maybe not so...
any rechargable battery in a state of charging or discharging is subject to releasing hydrogen as a result of the process. plastic is flammable, clothes, flammable, hydrogen, really flammable and the only two other factors necessary to light this gentleman up would be oxygen and a spark. i don't know about this particular case, but just because a spark is encapsulated by plastic doesn't keep cotton from igniting when mixed with hydrogen.