Why Were No Photographs Taken of Mark on the Scene?

In mid-2005, I informed Atty. Michael Kelly that Mark’s attending physician had asked me if pictures of Mark had been taken on the scene, as it was not clear from the autopsy report or the police report (which I had sent the doctor) if they were taken.  When Kelly met in September 2005 with NYSP Sr. Inv. John Wolfe and Inv. Edward Kalfas, the lead investigator in my brother Mark’s death, Kelly was allowed to view the police photographs of the scene and was informed by Inv. Kalfas that no photographs of Mark had been taken on the scene.

In his very brief narrative in the police report, the first NYSP officer on the scene, Trooper David Chandler, does not record if he examined Mark before he was taken away by airlift to the burn unit of the Erie County Medical Center.  Trooper Chandler apparently was on the scene before Mark was placed in the ambulance, since he records that his interview of Mark’s wife Susan began at 11:30 p.m. on September 23, 2003.

The first firefighter on the scene, Gary Wind, says in his witness statement that he was dispatched to the fire at about 10:59 p.m.  The first emergency worker on the scene, EMT (and neighbor) Cheryl Simcox, says in her witness statement that shortly after her arrival on the scene a couple of minutes after being toned out around 10:55 p.m., firefighters arrived and then a State Trooper.  Assuming that he was in fact present before Mark was taken away, as it appears he was, why didn’t Trooper Chandler take photographs of Mark to document the specific nature of his injuries?

It has without question been standard procedure for police to photograph on the scene victims of all types of injuries.  As one instructor of forensic photography for police officers put it, “Since patrol officers are generally involved on the front end, the photographs [they] take may be the best representation of an injury's severity” (see www.policemag.com/patrol/article/13548954/how-to-photograph-injuries). That, however, did not happen in Mark’s case.

Surprisingly, Trooper Chandler notes in his entry in the police report that he was responding to a report of a male "possibly attempting to burn himself in his vehicle."  By contrast, firefighter Gary Wind mentions in his witness statement that he responded to “possible entrapment in vehicle.”  The second firefighter on the scene, Mark Ward, similarly says in his witness statement that a little before 11 p.m. his “pacer went off indicating a truck fire and possible entrapment at the Pavlock residence.”  EMT Cheryl Simcox in a later conversation with me also stated that she was toned out for a “possible entrapment."

Where did Trooper Chandler get the idea that Mark was "possibly attempting to burn himself in his vehicle"?  How did the notion of a possible suicide materialize on the very night of Mark’s truck fire?  Trooper Chandler’s narrative is dated the very next day (Sept. 24, 2003); so, the events would have been very fresh in his mind.  Was there a second 911 call?  None is mentioned in the police report.

What specifically was in Susan’s 911 call?  Sr. Inv. Wolfe initially told Atty. Kelly in September 2005 that he would retrieve the tape but then changed his mind and informed Kelly in mid-November that he would get the 911 tape as well as other things he requested only if the medical records indicated foul play (see post of August 31, 2023).  When I later requested a transcript and audio of that 911 call, the NYSP replied that no such tape could be located (see post of September 22, 2011).

Was a rush to judgment about suicide made even before the investigation into Mark’s death really got started?  It would appear that way.  Is that, then, why no photographs were taken on the scene?  Because they took no photographs of Mark’s horrific injuries on the scene, the NYSP failed to document the wounds to Mark’s forehead observed and orally confirmed by two firefighters on the scene (Wayne Frank and Gary Wind), which Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit told me that he observed as soft-tissue swelling and confirmed through a CT scan.

From a poor investigation in 2003 to a resistance to reconsider their insistence on suicide or accident in 2005, the NYSP’s behavior was far worse than unprofessional.

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.