Tuesday, January 30, 2024

The Lead Investigator’s Claim That He Interviewed Mark’s Attending Physician


Previous posts (see esp. April 30 and August 31, 2020; August 9, 2022; and August 31, 2023) have brought up the issue that the NYSP investigators of my brother Mark’s death failed to interview his attending physician at the burn unit of the Erie County Medical Center, where Mark had been airlifted after his pickup truck suspiciously burst into flames in a field across from his house in Great Valley, NY, and he suffered third-degree burns over nearly his entire body.  This post discusses further the lead investigator’s claim that he spoke with Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit but that the doctor had nothing to say.

Dr. Edward Piotrowski, my brother’s attending physician, informed me in early 2005 that Mark had deep soft-tissue swelling on his forehead and additional soft-tissue swelling on the left side of his face when he arrived at the burn unit and that, with third and even some fourth-degree burns over about ninety percent of his body, Mark had clearly been doused with a flammable liquid (see post of March 31, 2018).  The doctor also explained that although he had been concerned about Mark’s condition, no one from the investigating authorities ever interviewed him, and therefore he assumed that they had an explanation.

When Atty. Michael Kelly met with Sr. Inv. John Wolfe and Inv. Edward Kalfas, the lead investigator of Mark’s death, he asked why Kalfas had failed to interview the doctor. Kalfas replied that he had called to speak with Mark’s attending physician, but he had nothing to say.  As previous posts have pointed out, Kalfas’s contradiction with Dr. Piotrowski’s statement to me is difficult to explain.  However, two brief entries for 9/24/03 in Kalfas’s narrative in the police report may shed some light on the issue.

First, Kalfas records the following: “Member spoke with [name/position redacted, i.e., blacked out] of Starflight Medivac. [name redacted] stated the victim was unable to communicate at any time during the transport to ECMC.”  Immediately after, Kalfas records the following: “Member interviews [name/position redacted] also states the victim was unable to communicate at any time during treatment.”

It is difficult to comprehend why the names of the medical personnel were redacted in the entries quoted above.  According to the NYS Department of State online in a section entitled Frequently Asked Questions, “All records are available, unless an exception permits an agency to deny access.  Most of the exceptions are based upon common sense and the potential for harm that would arise by means of disclosure.  If disclosure of records would be damaging to an individual or preclude a government agency from carrying out its duties, it is likely that some aspects of the records may be withheld.”

Revealing the name of Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit hardly appears to fit the category of being “damaging to an individual” or “preclud[ing] a government agency from carrying out its duties.”  Fortunately, a nephew of Mark’s and mine who was able to be at the burn unit the morning after Mark’s truck fire spoke to Dr. Piotrowski and gave me his name.

Since the second entry refers specifically to “treatment,” the individual with whom Kalfas spoke was certainly someone at ECMC, where Mark was taken to treat his severe burns.  However, since the name and (presumably) position of the particular individual is blacked out in the (heavily redacted) copy of the police report that I obtained through a FOIL request to the NYSP, one cannot know if it was Dr. Piotrowski or some other individual connected with ECMC’s burn unit.

The doctor presumably had assistance from other personnel in trying to save Mark’s life. Dr. Piotrowski himself told me in two different phone conversations that no one from the investigating authorities had spoken with him.  So, the individual whose name is redacted may well not have been Dr. Piotrowski.

However, the content of Kalfas’s summary of the two entries for 9/24/03 is revealing.  The two terse entries in virtually identical language suggests that Kalfas’s principal, and perhaps only, concern was to learn if Mark was able to speak or communicate in any way with the medical personnel on the airlift to ECMC and at the burn unit.  There is no indication that Kalfas asked the individual (e.g., Dr. Piotrowski or any other personnel at ECMC) what might have been observed about Mark’s condition.  Dr. Piotrowski would presumably not have failed to mention, among other things, that he observed swelling on Mark’s forehead and ordered a CT scan done to rule out bleeding in my brother’s brain.

Kalfas’s statement, then, that he spoke with Mark’s attending physician, who had nothing to say, does not seem credible.  Kalfas then did not bother to request the records for Mark’s treatment at ECMC.  It’s staggering how little work he appears to have actually put into this case from the very beginning.

Thursday, November 30, 2023

The Lead Investigator’s Unwarranted Insistence on Suicide


In late 2003, a nephew informed me that when my brother lay dying at the burn unit of the Erie County Medical Center, Mark’s attending physician told him that Mark had been doused with a flammable liquid and that it had not been an accident.  When I requested some information from that same attending physician, Dr. Edward Piotrowski, in early 2005, he informed me that he had never seen anyone come into the burn unit with such severe burns and had been concerned about how Mark had got so badly burned.

In addition, Dr. Piotrowski indicated that Mark had been doused with gasoline, even on his head.  As a forensic toxicologist later explained (see post of November 14, 2022), because Mark had been doused with gasoline, his skin would have continued to burn, even after he removed his clothes and tried to put the flames out.  The dousing with gasoline is the reason why 90 percent of his body suffered third (and even some fourth) degree burns.

When I met with lead investigator Edward Kalfas in person in early November 2003, he immediately said, “It’s looking more and more like a suicide.”  However, he said nothing about my brother being saturated with gasoline.  He also did not even mention that a pool of blood had been found in the driveway in the area where Mark normally parked his truck.

Kalfas did tell me, inaccurately, that Mark was discovered right next to the truck and was not rolling around (i.e., to put out the flames).  In fact, Mark was discovered about sixty feet away from the truck.  As Dr. Piotrowski informed me in 2005, there was dirt on my brother when he arrived at the burn unit, suggesting that he had tried to roll around to put out the flames.  In addition, the first fireman on the scene observed two small piles of clothing lying close to my brother, suggesting that Mark had pulled off what he could of his clothes in an effort to put out the flames.

When I first spoke by telephone with Kalfas in late September 2003, he mentioned that Mark had got into an altercation with an off-duty policeman at a local club and that after the officer called in to the police, Mark was arrested for DWI.  Having learned that Mark Marowski was that off-duty officer involved in the argument with my brother, I asked Kalfas at the November meeting if he knew what the argument had been about.  To my surprise, Kalfas immediately denied that he had mentioned the altercation to me and abruptly said that he would no longer speak with me.

It was obvious (1) that Kalfas wanted me to believe that Mark had committed suicide and (2) that Kalfas was also withholding information, including the saturation with gasoline, and distorting facts that might make my brother’s death appear to have been other than a suicide.

Although Atty. Tony Tanke did not speak directly with Kalfas, he was in contact with the Cattaraugus County District Attorney’s office on my behalf throughout the investigation.  However, he was not informed about the saturation with gasoline by the D.A.’s investigator or, in a final conversation in May 2003, by the D.A. himself.  Nor was he informed about the pool of Mark’s blood found in his driveway the night of the truck fire until he asked the D.A.’s investigator in late April 2004 if information I had heard about the blood was true.  He was then told that it was true, as proved by DNA and other testing.

Ironically, as Mark’s and my half-sister Carol McKenna informed me in March 2004, Kalfas told her both that Mark's skin was saturated with gas and that a pool of blood found in the driveway the night of the truck fire proved conclusively to be Mark’s.  She also said that Kalfas told her that he considered Mark’s death a suicide but could not prove it.  When late in 2004 I mentioned to Carol a report that Kalfas referred to Carol’s belief that Mark’s death was an accident, she replied that the subject of accident had never come up in her conversations with Kalfas.

When in September 2005 Atty. Michael Kelly had a meeting with NYSP Sen. Inv. John Wolfe and Inv. Kalfas, Kelly asked how Mark could have been saturated with gasoline if the fire was an accident, as the police report records the determination of the District Attorney.  Kalfas apparently did not respond to that issue directly.  But when asked if gasoline had been poured on the driver’s seat, he replied that the area of the truck around the driver’s seat had been completely burned out.  Kalfas also stated that because he did not think Mark’s death was a murder, he did not emphasize the pool of Mark’s blood found in the driveway.

It is clear that, very quickly in the investigation, Kalfas jumped to the conclusion that my brother had committed suicide.  Kalfas’s explanation to Atty. Kelly of why he barely mentioned in the police report the pool of blood found in Mark’s driveway (and did not divulge its existence during the investigation) reflects a very poor investigative strategy: it was a glaring failure to evaluate the facts before he drew conclusions.

Moreover, in his insistence on the suicide theory, Kalfas’s discussions with me reflect both withholding information and significantly misinforming me about my brother’s location right outside his truck when he was discovered by emergency workers, since Mark was actually sixty feet from the truck and there was no fire trail leading to his burning body.  So, how could Mark have got from the driver’s seat of the truck to the spot where he was found without leaving a fire trail?  Kalfas’s vehement reaction to a legitimate question about the argument between my brother and Ofc. Marowski, because of which Kalfas ended any further contact with me, also reflects his protection of a fellow police officer who should have been a person of interest in the investigation (see most recently post of September 30, 2023).

Thursday, September 28, 2023

The Problem of the NYSP Interviews of Ofc. Mark Marowski


After my brother Mark died from third-degree burns over ninety percent of his body in a very suspicious truck fire in a field across from his house in rural Great Valley, NY, on September 23, 2003, Edward Kalfas, the lead NYSP investigator, quickly focused on an unwarranted theory of suicide.  Yet he also informed me in a phone conversation that the day before the fire Mark had got into an altercation with an off-duty policeman at a club in Salamanca and that, after the officer called in to the police, Mark was arrested for DWI.  However, Inv. Kalfas did not mention the name of the off-duty police officer.

Not long afterward, however, I learned that Mark Marowski was the off-duty policeman, that the argument had been personal, and that Marowski himself had been drinking heavily at the club.  When I met with Inv. Kalfas in person in early November 2003 and asked about the argument between my brother and this police officer, Kalfas denied that he had told me about that altercation and abruptly ended the interview, adding that he would no longer speak to me.

In the weeks and months following my brother’s death, several individuals in the Salamanca area mentioned this incident to me, with numerous comments about Marowski’s behavior unsuited to a police officer.  The argument at the Holy Cross Club was a matter of concern because of the timing of it, the very day before Mark’s suspicious truck fire, and because of reported previous arguments between my brother and Marowski at that club (see esp. post of October 17, 2014).  In addition, I was concerned about a report that when Marowski came back into the Holy Cross Club after going out to have the Salamanca police stop my brother on his way home, he was overheard saying on his cell phone, “It’s all taken care of.”

With information I had at the time, I wrote a letter to then Cattaraugus County District Attorney Edward Sharkey in March 2004 in which I informed him about a number of issues, including the reports about Ofc. Marowski’s own heavy drinking the day of the altercation with my brother at the Holy Cross Club.  D.A. Sharkey never responded to my letter.

D.A. Sharkey informed Atty. Tony Tanke in May 2004 that he would not release any documents from his office to me and that I would have to make a FOIL request to the NYSP for the police report.  I did so and obtained a redacted copy of the police report in September 2004.  Although the report refers to my brother allegedly behaving “unusually” at the club, there is no mention of the altercation between my brother and Ofc. Marowski.

In early October 2005, in a phone conversation with NYSP Sr. Inv. John Wolfe, I brought up my concern that the argument between my brother and Ofc. Marowski the day before the truck fire was not pursued, as Inv. Kalfas admitted to Atty. Michael Kelly that he had not even asked members of the Holy Cross Club about the argument.  Sr. Inv. Wolfe did not respond.

In February 2006, in a phone conversation with NYSP Capt. George Brown, I expressed my concern about the failure of the investigators to pursue the argument between my brother and Ofc. Marowski.   Capt. Brown simply claimed, with no explanation, that it was irrelevant to Mark's death.

In April 2007, in a phone conversation with NYSP Lt. Allen, I again brought up the failure of Inv. Kalfas to pursue the argument between my brother and Ofc. Marowski the day before the fire.  Lt. Allen did not respond.

The lack of response by both D.A. Sharkey and the NYSP officials to my concerns about the altercation between my brother and Ofc. Marowski the very day before Mark’s truck fire, as well as the absence of any mention of that altercation in the police report, suggested that Marowski was being protected.  In an interview in May 2010 with current Cattaraugus County D.A. Lori Rieman, John Ensell, Inv. Kalfas’s superior in the investigation of Mark’s death, was also present.

When I raised the issue of the argument at the Holy Cross Club and the failure to pursue that issue during the investigation, Ensell stated that Marowski had been interviewed.  However, he said nothing specific about that interview.  In addition, Ensell’s insistence that the members present during the altercation said it hadn't been much of an argument contradicted the statement by Inv. Kalfas to Atty. Michael Kelly in September 2005 that he had not interviewed Holy Cross Club members about the altercation.

In late 2014, I brought up several issues of concern about the investigation of Mark’s death, including the argument at the Holy Cross Club, to NYSP Capt. Steven Nigrelli.  Capt. Nigrelli informed me that he would have an NYSP investigator follow up on my concerns and in January 2015 provided me with a summary of the results (see post of January 16, 2015).  Although most of the summaries of the items list the dates when the interviews were conducted, there is no date for the summary concerning Marowski. There is also no indication of who actually interviewed Marowski.

However, a nephew of mine and my brother’s, who was interviewed at that time about what he observed at Mark’s house a couple of months before the truck fire, informed me that he was contacted by Inv. Christopher Iwanko.  Inv. Iwanko had a role in the investigation of my brother’s death, since he is listed in the police report as present at Mark’s autopsy, “taking photographs, fingerprints and a blood kit from [the] victim.”  Iwanko also responded to a phone call by an independent criminologist, who inquired about the photos of the scene of the truck fire.  The criminologist was surprised when Iwanko said that he remembered the case but oddly hesitated a considerable time before giving his name (requested in case the criminologist needed to call again for clarification or further information).

The summary of the interview of Marowski in late 2014 or early 2015 provided by Capt. Nigrelli is very brief, mentioning that Marowski was asked about two issues: (1) “his knowledge of the incident surrounding Mark's death” and (2) his relationship with my brother and his wife.  It suggests that Marowski was not really pressed about either issue. On the first issue, the summary states only: “with no new information developed.”

On the second issue, the summary reports two responses by Marowski that are uninformative.  His apparently neutral statement that he “knew both Mark and Susan since they all grew up in the area” seems particularly hypocritical and deceptive in light of a report about his response at the Holy Cross Club the day after Mark’s truck fire.  According to a bartender at the club, as my brother lay dying in the burn unit and calls were coming in at the club with updates on his condition, Marowski actually bragged about his role in Mark’s arrest for DWI.  Could the investigator really have been unaware of Marowski’s own DWI arrest (see post of February 17, 2015), for which he was reportedly forced to retire?

The summary of the interview of Marowski also states that he “denied any romantic relationship with Susan Pavlock.”  Since I had e-mailed to Capt. Nigrelli a copy of the anonymous letter sent to me that alleges an affair between Marowski and my brother's wife (see post of August 11, 2014: “Firstly, Sue was having an affair with Mark Marowski.  She was observed riding a 4-wheeler with him on numerous occasions”), the letter was presumably passed on to the investigator.

Apparently, no effort was made in advance of that interview to determine if any acquaintances or neighbors in Great Valley had observed the off-road recreation mentioned in the anonymous letter.  Was the NYSP investigator unaware of the lawsuit against Marowski for defrauding the Holy Cross Club of funds that were to be used to benefit its members (see post of October 17, 2014)?  Could he also have been unaware of the circumstances of Marowski’s prior arrest for speeding and DWI, after he tried to evade the Salamanca police officers in pursuit of him (again, see post of February 17, 2015)?  Did the investigator really assume that Marowski was an honest and straightforward person?

Given Marowski’s documented unprofessional and unethical conduct, he should have been fully scrutinized for possible involvement in my brother Mark’s death.  But judging by the suppression from the police report of Marowski’s argument with my brother the day before the truck fire and what the NYSP revealed to me about the two interviews of Marowski, the opposite is what really happened.  A police officer was being protected.

A former Salamanca police officer, who also has had a successful career in another state, knew Marowski and had a negative opinion of him (see post of Sept. 13, 2015).  I end by quoting the assessment of the investigation by this police officer: “I read through all the reports and it doesn't appear that much of an investigation was done because, I think, they thought no one would give a damn anyway.  Anything that was done subsequent to the original shoddy investigation was only an effort to justify what had not been done in the first place.”