Previous posts have discussed the problem of the gas can found on the floor of the passenger’s side of my brother Mark’s pickup truck the night of his truck fire (see esp. July 22, 2012, and October 30, 2018). As mentioned in the earlier posts, the location of the gas can that night is suspicious because Mark never put gas cans in the cab of his truck, but always secured them in the back of the truck. This post discusses how thoroughly (or not) the NYSP investigators looked into the gas can itself from a scientific perspective as well as from common experience.
It is well known that gas cans easily explode, if left open and their vapors exposed to a flame or some other source of ignition. The Fire Investigator’s report specifies that there was no explosion, and the lead investigator Edward Kalfas also told me that there was no explosion. However, Mark’s neighbor and EMT Cheryl Simcox informed me that she heard an explosion and saw the truck on fire in the field across from Mark’s house; “toned out” about the fire, she rushed to the scene. Cheryl stated that her husband also heard the explosion.
Surprised when I told her that there was no reference to an explosion in her witness statement in the police report, Cheryl said that she was quite sure she had mentioned it to Inv. Kalfas when he took her statement. In addition, Mark’s and my half-sister Carol McKenna told me in passing that Mark’s wife Susan had also mentioned hearing an explosion, though Susan does not refer to an explosion in her own witness statement.
Furthermore, Cheryl Simcox said that the explosion had shaken their trailer. Given such a strong recollection of that event, some form of explosion seems certain. When Dr. Edward Piotrowski, Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit, asked me if there had been an explosion, I replied that according to Inv. Kalfas there had not been an explosion. The doctor, however, expressed skepticism about Kalfas’s denial of an explosion since Kalfas had not been on the scene at the time.
In a conversation with an experienced forensic toxicologist, I referred to Cheryl Simcox’s mention of an explosion and Dr. Piotrowski’s interest in knowing if there had been an explosion. The forensic toxicologist explained that the issue of an explosion is part of a larger picture and that it is important to know if the gas can was open. I mentioned that firefighter Wayne Frank had told me that it was probably not possible to know the answer because the gas can was so badly burned. The forensic toxicologist, however, stated that forensic experts would in fact be able to tell if the can was open or not when it burned.
In an entry in his narrative the police report for 09/24/03, Inv. Kalfas lists among five items of evidence "the melted remains of a red plastic gas can -to Western Regional Crime Lab." Nothing further is stated about the condition of the gas can. How much of it was left? Was the cap of the can totally destroyed in the fire?
In an entry for 11/04/03, Kalfas states the following: “Member received lab results from the Western Regional Crime Lab regarding the melted gas can and burnt clothing from the victim. Items tested positive for gasoline.” Kalfas states nothing more about the lab results from the Western Regional Crime Lab. One assumes that the Western Regional Crime Lab was more detailed, but the police report does not include the report from that Crime Lab. As far as the gas can goes, the information reported by Kalfas suggests that the NYSP investigators (Kalfas and his immediate superior Sr. Inv. John Ensell) were interested only in determining if there had actually been gasoline in it at the time of the fire.
Was there no concern to find out from forensic experts at the Western Regional Crime Lab if the can was open or not when it burned? Did it cause the explosion heard and felt by Cheryl Simcox? Part of the “larger picture” referred to by the forensic toxicologist whom I consulted would presumably concern the manner in which the gasoline would have spread through the cab of the truck. Would the Fire Investigator’s statement that the “heavy damage to the driver’s side seat and floor area” and the “lesser damage” to the passenger’s side be consistent with a finding that the gas can had been open but otherwise undisturbed?
If not, how would one explain the saturation of the driver’s side seat and floor with gasoline? Mark certainly had no reason to use the gas can late that night: he had not run out of gas as the tank was determined to be three-quarters full.
