New information about my brother Mark’s condition at the time of his suspicious truck fire and issues that did not appear to be pursued (or not fully pursued) during the investigation in fall of 2003 appeared to offer hope that the investigation might be re-opened. At my request, in September 2005 in his interview with NYSP Sr. Inv. John Wolfe and Inv. Edward Kalfas, Atty. Michael Kelly raised pertinent questions about the investigation into Mark’s truck fire and his death from third-degree burns over ninety percent of his body. This post considers five important issues that Sr. Inv. Wolfe agreed to investigate following this meeting with Atty. Kelly in 2005 but then failed to pursue.
(1) It was unclear why Trooper David Chandler, the first NYSP official on the scene of Mark’s truck fire, refers in his narrative in the police report to responding for a "male subject possibly attempting to burn himself in his vehicle." Atty. Kelly, therefore, asked if Kalfas, who had been the lead investigator, had reviewed the 911 call made by Mark’s wife Susan. When Kalfas told Kelly that he had got the 911 tape but couldn’t remember what it said specifically, Wolfe said that he would call to retrieve the 911 tape.
However, Wolfe changed his mind and informed Kelly in mid-November that he would get the 911 tape and other things we requested only if the medical records indicated foul play. It would certainly have required little effort on his part to get the tape of the 911 call, which I later learned was problematic, according to an official who had heard it shortly after Mark’s truck fire (see post of July 7, 2022).
(2) In early 2005, Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit informed me about deep soft-tissue damage to my brother’s forehead and to the left side of his face, and in mid-2005 Kelly learned from firefighter Wayne Frank about a wound to Mark’s forehead that looked as if he had been struck by a nine-iron. At the meeting in September 2005, Kelly asked Kalfas why there is no mention of those head injuries in the police report. In addition, according to Frank, firefighter Gary Wind (who later confirmed this to me) also noticed the small gash on Mark's forehead. Kelly therefore asked if NYSP Trooper Chandler had mentioned anything to Kalfas about Mark's condition. When Kalfas apparently had nothing to say, Wolfe told Kelly that he would call in Trooper Chandler to ask about the head wound and about relevant comments made by individuals on the scene.
However, in a phone call in early October, without providing any explanation, Wolfe insisted to me that there was no evidence of wounds to Mark’s head. Wolfe’s phone conversation with Kelly in mid-November 2005 (mentioned above) suggests that he had probably not interviewed Trooper Chandler. If the Trooper actually had nothing to report, Wolfe should have told that to Kelly.
(3) Since Dr. Edward Piotrowski, Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit at Erie County Medical Center, had informed me about the deep soft-tissue swelling and stated that Mark had been doused with a flammable liquid (see post of March 31, 2018), Kelly asked why Kalfas failed to interview the doctor. Although Dr. Piotrowski had told me that no one from the investigating authorities ever spoke with him, Kalfas told Kelly that he had called to speak with the attending physician, but he had nothing to say. Wolfe then informed Kelly that he would contact the doctor himself.
In a phone conversation with me in mid-October 2005, Wolfe informed me that he used the new phone number for Dr. Piotrowski (given to me by his former secretaries at ECMC and SUNY Buffalo Medical School), but the doctor said his name was Piotrowski but he had never worked at ECMC. In a phone conversation in April 2007, NYSP Lt. Allen stated that Capt. Brown had had Sr. Inv. Wolfe track down Dr. Piotrowski in December 2005 and that the doctor said he could not remember the case and could not say anything without having the medical records in front of him. Lt. Allen acknowledged that Dr. Piotrowski did not get back to them and they did not pursue the matter further.
Wolfe did not show good faith when he failed to interview Dr. Piotrowski about Mark’s condition upon his arrival in the burn unit, in particular about the soft-tissue damage to his forehead and the left side of his face. In a phone conversation with me in September 2005 shortly after Kelly’s meeting with Wolfe and Kalfas, Wolfe was emphatic that they needed to see the medical records as well as to speak with Dr. Piotrowski. Atty. Kelly, moreover, informed me that he had told the NYSP to get a subpoena if the doctor refused to speak to them.
(4) In the meeting in September 2005, as reported by Kelly, Wolfe agreed that the issue of Mark’s blood alcohol level needed to be clarified. Kelly indicated that given Dr. Piotrowski’s statement to me that Mark’s corpse had to be the source of the blood (serum) alcohol test (the results of which are recorded in the autopsy report), they would need to find out what the emergency room might have sent to the burn unit. In that meeting, Wolfe also instructed Kalfas to ask Susan Pavlock to sign a release for the medical records. It is unclear what ensued, but when I later asked Wolfe if he had received the medical records, he said that they were getting them by a subpoena (on Wolfe’s remarks about the medical records, see post of March 31, 2020).
Wolfe apparently did not follow through on the blood alcohol issue when he obtained the medical records. When I spoke with NYSP Capt. George Brown in January 2006, he insisted that the technician involved in the testing would have been an experienced professional and the doctor reading the results would have known how to interpret them. However, as I learned much later from an experienced forensic toxicologist in 2012 (see post of April 29, 2023), my brother would have been in a coma if he had a blood alcohol level of over .40 at the time of the truck fire, as calculated from the post-mortem serum level in the autopsy report.
(5) In the meeting in September 2005, Kelly asked why Kalfas failed to pursue the claim to me by my brother’s daughter Christie that Mark had committed suicide because he was depressed over our mother's death (nearly three years earlier) and that he had left her a suicide letter but that she was telling only me as well as her mother and brother in order to protect the insurance money (see post of November 23, 2013). Kalfas replied that Christie had denied knowing anything about a suicide note and that he did not know what to do about it. In a phone conversation with Wolfe shortly after that meeting, I brought up my concern about Christie's claim of a suicide letter, which I did not believe, and her reference to protecting the insurance money. Wolfe then stated that he wanted to speak with Christie but that she had not returned his call.
Wolfe apparently did not pursue Christie’s statement to me about a suicide letter and protection of insurance money. Atty. Kelly, however, insisted to me that this issue should have been investigated and that Christie should have been subpoenaed if she refused to speak with Wolfe.
If the NYSP had actually pursued these five issues, as Sr. Inv. Wolfe initially agreed to do, the investigation of my brother’s horrific death would presumably have been re-opened, as Atty. Kelly expected it to be.
