Spontaneous Human Combustion

X

Xevious

Truth Beyond Logic
Registered Senior Member
The case of Jean Lucille Saffin

In September 1982, a mentally handicapped London woman, Jeannie Saffin aged 61, burst into flames while sitting on a wooden Windsor chair in the kitchen of her home in Edmonton. Her father, who was seated at a nearby table, said he saw a flash of light out of the corner of his eye and turned to Jeannie to ask if she had seen it. He was astonished to find that she was enveloped in flames, mainly around her face and hands.

Mr. Saffin said Jeannie did not cry out or move, but merely sat there with her hands in her lap. He pulled her over to the sink, starting trying to douse the flames with water and called to his son-in-law, Donald Carroll. The younger man ran into the kitchen to see Jeannie standing with flames 'roaring' from her face and abdomen. The two men managed to douse the flames with pans of water and called the emergency services.

According to the ambulance men who took Jeannie to hospital, the kitchen itself was undamaged by smoke or flame and her clothing was undamaged except for a part of her red nylon cardigan which had melted.

Both Donald Carroll, the son-in-law and Mr. Saffin (a First World War veteran) spoke of the flames coming from Jeannie as making a 'roaring noise'.

Jeannie appeared to be conscious and aware in hospital but did not speak. The third degree burns on her body covered only the parts of her that had been unclothed, her face and hands, apart from her abdomen, where she had held her hands clasped while sitting. She lapsed into a coma and died after 8 days.

Perhaps the most important fact that the eyewitness testimony provides is that the burning episode in the kitchen lasted at most a minute or two before the flames were doused, rather than hours.

An inquest was held into Ms. Saffin's death and police enquiries were ordered by the coroner, Dr. J. Burton to determine how she caught fire. The policeman who conducted the enquiry reported to the coroner's court that no cause could be found. He told Ms. Saffin's relatives that he believed her to be a victim of Spontaneous Human Combustion.

In his evidence to the inquest, Ms. Saffin's brother-in-law, Donald Carrol, said that she had died as a result of SHC. 'The flames were coming from her mouth like a dragon and they were making a roaring noise.' He told the coroner.

However, the coroner reached a verdict of misadventure. To the family the coroner, Dr. Burton, said, 'I sympathise with you but I cannot put down SHC because there is no such thing. I will have to put down misadventure or open verdict.'
 
What is the source of this article? Was this incident reported in any other newspapers at all? What evidence is their that this event actually happened beyond this article?
 
Again, I see the same article repeated. The source is cited as a book called Ablaze!, written by one Larry Arnold. What is the source for his information? Am I supposed to take Mr. Arnold to be an authoritative source of information?

I haven't specifically looked into spontaneous human combustion before, aside from watching a few documentaries on television. However, from having looked into other similar things believed by enthusiasts in the paranormal and UFOlogy, I know such stories are often grossly misinterpreted with each successive telling (if not outright fabrications). If I'm to make judgement on this case, I need to know where the information has come from. You have only cited secondary and tertiary sources.


One of your links describes "well documented" cases ( the above story allegedly being one of them), however, the majority of these come from the same source. The book Ablaze!.
 
AD1, your showing me one of the strongest reasons I don't trust "skeptics" right now.

The reason I brought up spontaneous human combustion as a topic was partly interest in it, but mostly to show how far skeptics sometimes go to debunk the paranormal when no naturalistic explanation is available, at least in there minds.

In UFO's, you can say that the observer was honest but mistook something. Similar things are said of things like the Lock Ness Monster, Big Foot, ect. With magic and witchcraft, there is a naturalistic explanation in human psycology. But with spontaneous human combustion, it's so bizzar a phenomenon that nearly all cases of it have to be dismissed as hoaxes in order to find a cause skeptics are comfortable with. Then again, with how much they call everyone else a liar, I would suspsct skeptics to be just as paranoid as any conspiracy theorist. Who's going to lie next with the next great big wierd thing?

Like with UFO's, I want to remind you AD1, that Spontaneous Human Combustion is a VERY old phenomenon. Reports of it go back as far as the middle-ages at least. If you don't have a problem pushing that 500 years worth of eyewitnesses are all lying, then apparently you either don't trust ANYBODY's word for anything. That's very disturbing... eye witness reports are very crucial for crimes like murder, robbery, and the like. Granted they are not the ONLY line of evidence but they are still important. Do you honestly think that our criminal justice system could prosecute as many people as it does without eye-witnesses?
 
Last edited:
The reason I brought up spontaneous human combustion as a topic was partly interest in it, but mostly to show how far skeptics sometimes go to debunk the paranormal when no naturalistic explanation is available, at least in there minds.

Well, your little experiment has, as yet, been unsuccessful. I haven't seen anyone try to debunk anything in this thread. However, it has shown me just how riled people can get when someone such as myself merely asks for more information.

But with spontaneous human combustion, it's so bizzar a phenomenon that nearly all cases of it have to be dismissed as hoaxes in order to find a cause skeptics are comfortable with.

"Skeptics" try to dismiss "spontaneous human combustion" as hoaxes? I've not heard of this. I've seen two documentaries on the alleged phenomena, I don't recall them ever trying to dismiss such cases as hoaxes.

Then again, with how much they call everyone else a liar

Yes, I'm not in that group am I?

Spontaneous Human Combustion is a VERY old phenomenon. Reports of it go back as far as the middle-ages at least.

I'm not denying it.

If you don't have a problem pushing that 500 years worth of eyewitnesses are all lying,

Ah, which "eyewitnesses"? I'm trying to confirm that such people actually exist.

then apparently you either don't trust ANYBODY's word for anything. That's very disturbing"

Similarly disturbing is the fact that people will be trusting of anybody, uncritically accepting of any outlandish claim and will leap to conclusions prior to having thoroughly examined any evidence.

I trust people who I have learnt to trust. I don't trust anyone I don't know.

Do you honestly think that our criminal justice system could prosecute as many people as it does without eye-witnesses?

No, but in my opinion you're overstating their importance. I don't think any lawyer likes to rely heavily on eyewitnesses to make his case.

Xevious, please don't jump to any conclusions about my intentions. I simply wish to know the original source of the article you posted. I was willing to accept that these people may have borne witness to an unexplained or even unexpainable event, I'm just reluctant to accept such stories at face value. "Extaordinary claims require extraodinary evidence", so the saying goes.
 
Let me offer a humble apoligy, sir. I've seen in other threads so many "skeptics" that I myself am becomming overly sensetive. It's not an excuse, however.

Spontaneous human combustion is by and largely not scientifically investigated. The most you are going to find are books like "Ablaze", which in itself is based from what I have read, on police reports and the like. I'm sure the book would include a bibliography. Even the more serious books on UFO's do. Most of the cases of spontaneous human combustion are based on media reports. Science would have a hard time with the phenomenon I think, because there is almost nothing left to investigate once the person is burned.

The skeptics dictionary includes this entry.
"Many of the SHC stories have originated with police investigators who have been perplexed by partially ignited corpses near unburnt rugs or furniture. "What else could it be?" they ask. Many of the allegedly spontaneously combusted corpses are of elderly people who may have been murdered or who may ignited themselves accidentally. Yet, self-ignition due to dropping a lit cigarette, or ignition due to another person are ruled out by the investigators as unlikely. Even when candles or fireplaces present a plausible explanation for the cause of a fire, investigators sometimes favor an explanation which requires belief in an event which has never been witnessed in all of human history and whose likelihood is extremely implausible."
Click to expand...
http://skepdic.com/shc.html

Several things the skeptics dictionary said are already contradicted in the mentioned case. First, there is a witness. Second, the cloths are unburned mostly. All the links the skeptics dictionary are to anti-SHC posts, so if you want to learn what the advocates of SHC think, you will come up empty-handed. However, it is always good to find out what others think, particularly if they disagree with you.

The reason SHC intrigues me is because it is a very OLD phenomenon, reportedly. It's not like Cattle Mutilations, which began at a specific point. It is actually more like UFO's, and other phenomenon, which are more likely in my opinion to be a bizzar and unknown natural phenomenon.

A good web-search on SHC will turn up plenty of results. I will leave it up to you to decide which sources are good and which are not. SHC gets a lot less exposure than UFO's and the like, so the availability of information on it is not nearly as much as with other more reputed phenomenon.

Weigh it carefully, friend. Again, apoligies for snapping at you.
 
Xevious:

OK, no snapping, but I'm another one who is very reluctant to believe in paranormal incidents. And since SHC is outside scientific explanations, I must regard it as paranormal.

I did a search as you suggested, and found this:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9611/shc.html

Please read with as open mind as you expect of others.

This one is pro, but really doesnt add much fact:

http://www.crystalinks.com/shc.html

Another contra:

http://www.comedition.com/Unusual/shc.htm

This one seems neutral:

http://anomalyinfo.com/articles/ga00003e.shtml


---- Unfortunately, it seems that SHC means a lot of other things too, so its rather cumbersome to search for, heheh. But there's a few for starters.

Hans
 
I am familiar with the idea that the human body is an inside-out candle, Hans. Most reports I have read though, say that the people burn within a matter of seconds... while experiments with pigs and the like can take several hours. If it takes several hours for people to burn to that degree, then it is logical to conclude that it is possible for rescue workers to save them. Heck, anyone standing around with a running faucet, a fire extinguisher, ect. should be able to save them. In many of these cases, the person on fire is reported to 911. Yet by the time they arrive, the person is dead, and little is left of the body accept perhaps one of two parts.

I don't suspect supernatural phenomenon as a cause... I rarely do. However, I always suspect that science has it's shortcommings. This phenomenon, I think would be explainable if it wern't for the fact the bodies were so utterly destroyed. The problem is that the phenomenon destroys all the evidence of it's creation in the process.
 
My opinion, after reading through the accounts i've posted links to, is that it is unlikely that there is a special phenomenon. Most reports can be attributed to known causes, other reports are of doubtful credibility.

Science has its shortcomings, but the area of thermodynamics is actually extremely well explored. It is very unlikely that there are any significant unknown phenomenon in that area (and obviously, any natural cause for SHC must be in the realm of thermodynamics).

The description you refer to, that the person is (nearly) totally consumed within seconds, and little else around them is affected, as given in some of the accounts, is in itself contrary to thermodynamics. The human body contains a considerable amount of energy; if that was to be released within a few seconds, the effect on the surroundings would be devastating, much like an explosion.

Hans
 
To me Hans, it just looks like another form of flashfire. Remember what happened on Apollo 1 for example. The only thing that fried was the command module, even though the chances were very good for it to have spread to the gantry. With Apollo 1, the umbical lines to the launch pad were still in place. But, the fire did not spread to the launch tower.

The idea of something like that happening in SHC is not in my mind at least, all that far-fetched.
 
That was a fire in pure oxygen (thus the flash effect). The effect was limited because it was in a closed system, so once the oxygen was consumed, it stopped.

A person is 80% water, the rest has an energy density roughly equivalent to dense wood. Take an ordinary 60kg person, thats about 53 liters of water. Something has to evaporate that (I cannot imagine how), but once evaporated, it has an energy content (relative to room temperature) of roughly 2 million calories. Add to this the combustion value of 17 kg of wood. All released in a few seconds? This could blow an ordinary house apart.

And even granted all that, where should the energy influx (to evaporate the water and ignite the rest) come from?

Hans
 
Others have speculated that a misfiring of the human nervous system is to blame. The electrical impulses which flow throught our bodies travel at 200 miles an hour plus, and do contain a rather significant amount of emergy.

I personally don't know what to believe, Hans. As I said, when the body combusts, it takes all evidence of what happened with it.
 
Others have speculated that a misfiring of the human nervous system is to blame. The electrical impulses which flow throught our bodies travel at 200 miles an hour plus, and do contain a rather significant amount of emergy.
Click to expand...
No, sorry, that doesnt compute. 200mph is actually very slow for an electrical pulse, but thats not important. Important is energy. Nerve impulses are in microwatt level, but of course, there are a high niumber of them. I dont know if the total power is know, but the resting energy consumption of a human must be indicative. Its about 100W. The maximum an average person can deliver in short bursts (total motive energy) is about 400W. Not remotely enough.

Hans
 
we already have a thread on SHC, but it's an old one, but might provide an interesting read

my father has seen what you call "Spontaneous Combustion " or at leas what was left of him

My father then was 25 and he was a criminal detective at police.
When they arrived at the place[investigation group], they saw a chair. There was a pile of ash on the chair, and the witnesses claimed there was a man there. Latter analysis prooved tht tht ash could be human. What was signifficant is tht. there were signs of extreme temperature, but the chair was merely burnt[slyghtly burnt, toned brown].
There have also been other cases in EE. so because you say tht
Spontaneous Combustions happen only in west is [I think] that you live there. I myself have never heard of Spontaneous Combustions in West, but tht doesen't mean tht there aren't any.

I would say tht these combustions are caused by our body chemistry. I saw on discovery channel tht there are chemicals in people tht can couse the combustion, the only thing tht remains unclear is what triggers this combustion.

If you like, I can ask my father for more details, he told me about this case some two years ao and I don't remember alll clearly.
Bye!
Click to expand...

I asked my father to tell that case again, so here it is.

The year was 1976. He was ordered to go to a small wooden house in city suburbs.
The room was big, but with very little furniture in it. A desk with a tv on it, wardrobe and some chairs. In the centre of the room was a chair and on it was a body (not pile of ash). It was almost turned into a coal. There vere visable some parts of bones outside the overburnt skin. Was visible a part of scull by the sides of the head and also bones of hands. The place were legs of the body were touching floor was slightly - don't know how it's in englisg- brown, like you hold a match to a wooden surface for a few seconds and it turns brown but not sets on fire. So was the places where body touched chair. And jet body was burnt in extremely high temperature - it was almost turned into a coal. There were no signs of fire in that room nor at the rest of the house. On the celing at the place where body was, were also signs of that slight burning I described earlier.

Latter chemical analysis showed no signs of any highly flamable substance, like petrol, liquid gas. Actually there were no traces of any substance or matter out of usual.
The case was closed and written in the documents as "incareful treating with fire". Father said tht they were avery confused by this case and only some years later, when he was interesting about it, he firstly heard of spontaneous combustion .
Click to expand...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5015
 
Out of all the things mentioned with all these events, why isn't medication one of them. As I read all the events, most where elderly or handicap with more likely they where taking something for at least pain or other conditions. Could there have been a chemical reaction with a chemical in the body maybe. I know this maybe debunked by the legs still there in most cases. And where was the most cases reported at. To what I read, London is almost all I hear unless someone know of a list I can read of cases. As I think of it (don't quote me if I am worng, I'm not a doctor :) can't a drug travels in the blood stream but has not reached the legs yet maybe be the cause if it had an early chem reaction. And what do you need for a fire, oxygen. When the person breathing heavily could also fueled the fire upwards. Just more to make people think of if it is real or not. Someone should get a list and see if there where on a any meds at the time it happend and what kind.
 
http://skepdic.com/shc.html

That site does a pretty good job of explaining some of the aspects of SHC.

A more economical and reasonable theory of how human bodies burn in rooms without having the entire room engulfed in flames is the idea of the wick effect. The ignition point of human fat is low and to get the fire going would require an external source. Once ignited, however, a "wick effect" from the body's fat would burn hot enough in certain places to destroy even bones.
Click to expand...

I am surprised at the speed in which this takes place. 21 minutes to burn completely? If we lit the body on fire with gasoline it would burn slower than that.
 
Xevious said:
Do you honestly think that our criminal justice system could prosecute as many people as it does without eye-witnesses?
Click to expand...
you would have a hard time indeed of conviction based soley on the testimony of just one eye witness
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top