Irish Man's Death Ruled Spontaneous Combustion

chrb writes "BBC News is reporting that an Irish coroner has ruled that a dead man was killed by spontaneous human combustion. The controversial finding is a first in Irish history. From the article: 'West Galway coroner Dr Ciaran McLoughlin said it was the first time in 25 years of investigating deaths that he had recorded such a verdict. Michael Faherty, 76, died at his home in Galway on 22 December 2010. Deaths attributed by some to "spontaneous combustion" occur when a living human body is burned without an apparent external source of ignition.'"

Comments

In completely unrelated news

[mmmmbeer]

The first test of my DeathRay is a complete success! MUAHAHAHAHA!

Hm...

[Zaldarr]

"The court heard Mr Faherty had been found lying on his back with his head closest to an open fireplace." ... "He said Professor Bernard Knight, in his book on forensic pathology, had written about spontaneous combustion and noted that such reported cases were almost always near an open fireplace or chimney." ... ""There is a source of ignition somewhere, but because the body is so badly destroyed the source can't be found," he said." The obvious solution is that his hair caught on fire; perhaps with some sort of flammable substance in his hair like an aerosol or hair gel and the damage was too great for forensics to pick it up.

Re:Fire in the fireplace?

[toQDuj]

Except that humans are not particularly inflammable. Sure, the hair burns, and maybe a bit of the skin or clothing, but the huge quantities of water in the body make for a reasonable extinguisher. Perhaps, though, if you're loaded up with lethal levels of alcohol...

Re:Fire in the fireplace?

[taiwanjohn]

The best explanation I've heard is the wick effect.

The "wick effect" hypothesis suggests that a small external flame source, such as a burning cigarette, chars the clothing of the victim at a location, splitting the skin and releasing subcutaneous fat, which is in turn absorbed into the burned clothing, acting as a wick. This combustion can continue for as long as the fuel is available. This hypothesis has been successfully tested with animal tissue (pig) and is consistent with evidence recovered from cases of human combustion.[5][6] The human body typically has enough stored energy in fat and other chemical stores to fully combust the body; even lean people have several pounds of fat in their tissues.

The presumption is that the person dies of other causes, and then a lit cigarette or some other ignition source starts the process. And you're right, from what I've heard, a high percentage of SHC victims were known to be heavy drinkers, which would only add more fuel to the fire.

Re:What garbage non-science!

[TapeCutter]

No one is claiming that people randomly catch fire with no external stimulus.

And neither is the BBC. - The coroner brought down the verdict of "spontaneous combustion" that appears in the headline and the BBC correctly defined what that means in the context of a coroner's inquest. They quote the coroner as saying - "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."

Indeed, the headline is misleading (shame on you BBC)

There's nothing misleading about it, unless of course you're looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC.

Unfortunately this sort of thing is common at the BBC now. They have a nasty habit...

Oh, my mistake, you were looking for an imaginary excuse to bash the BBC, carry on.