Kalfas’s Unwillingness to Listen to Potentially Important Information during the Investigation into Mark’s Death

This post concerns the quite adamant unwillingness of the lead investigator Edward Kalfas to listen to relevant and potentially significant information to the investigation of my brother Mark’s death.  His harsh manner in responding to one particular individual who contacted him early in the investigation left her feeling very intimidated.

Mark’s and my cousin Betty Povlock (her family used an alternate spelling of the surname), a retired Cattaraugus County nurse, was very concerned about Mark’s death.  She was grateful for help Mark had given her in planting flowers on her parents’ grave site and driving her to Buffalo when her beloved cocker spaniel needed specialized veterinary care.

In early October 2003, Betty informed me about a conversation she had had with a local Salamanca woman who reported hearing that Mark’s wife Susan had been in a rage over his DWI the day before his truck fire (on the problematic circumstances of that DWI, see esp. posts of September 22, 2010; July 28, 2011; and April 18, 2013).  Betty told me the name of the woman with whom she had spoken and the name of the woman who had observed Susan’s reaction to Mark’s DWI.  I encouraged Betty to report this information to Inv. Kalfas.

Later in October, Betty called to let me know about her conversation with Kalfas.  She was quite upset about how dismissive Kalfas had been toward her.  He apparently did not let her finish what she wanted to report but just abruptly told her that he did not want to hear about rumors.  In an interview with him in early November, I myself experienced Kalfas’s unprofessional attitude when he gruffly stated that he would no longer speak with me after I asked him a question about the personal argument between my brother and Ofc. Mark Marowski at a local club the day before the truck fire (see post of September 22, 2010, section “Communicating with Inv. Kalfas and the District Attorney”).

Ironically, the information Betty had tried to report in fact reinforced what the couple who brought Mark back home from his arrest for DWI told Kalfas when they were interviewed during the investigation.  The wife, who grew up on the same street as my brother and I and remained friends with Mark through the years, told me with no hesitation that she and her husband had reported Susan’s vehement reaction to Mark’s DWI (see post of August 22, 2012).

Surprised that there is no mention of that information in the police report, I requested that Atty. Michael Kelly ask about this gap when he met with Kalfas and his superior John Wolfe in 2005.  Kalfas’s response was unsatisfactory: he did not think they had told him “all that much,” and he felt that Susan was “understandably upset” and as an employee in the school system would be embarrassed at the publicity over the DWI.

In his interviews of Susan, shouldn’t Kalfas have asked her about her reaction to Mark’s DWI?  The two descriptions of her reaction, the one from eyewitnesses immediately upon Mark’s arrival home from the DWI and the other presumably later, suggest that Kalfas should have followed up on the issue to get Susan’s own view of her response to her husband’s DWI.  Nothing in the police report indicates that Kalfas brought up this issue with Susan.  His brief references to his interviews of Mark’s wife indicate that he focused on events the day of the truck fire.

What Kalfas dismissively called “rumors” many investigators would call potential leads that warrant some level of investigative effort. It is unfortunate—not to mention unprofessional—that Kalfas rudely cut my cousin Betty off when she tried to relay the information she had been given about Susan’s reaction to Mark’s DWI. 

A little over a year after her upsetting conversation with Kalfas, Betty told me that another woman had recently mentioned the name of an individual (allegedly) involved in Mark’s death.  Betty added that her acquaintance would not elaborate.  Some time afterwards, Betty mentioned that her informant was a member of the local government.

Although the investigation was officially over at that point, new information could have re-opened the case.  If Betty had felt comfortable relaying to Kalfas what her acquaintance had suggestively mentioned but refused to expand on, the investigator himself could then have interviewed that member of the local government.

The Problem of the Lack of a Timeline by the NYSP in Their Investigation of Mark’s Death

Timelines are considered important tools for police in investigations of suspicious deaths and murders as they arrange the events in chronological sequence, providing a coherent framework for assessing a case.  However, after Atty. Michael Kelly met with the lead investigator of my brother Mark’s case and his immediate superior in 2005, Kelly indicated that there seemed to be no timeline or charts detailing the scene of Mark’s truck fire.

A timeline in Mark’s case should presumably have begun with events from the day before the truck fire.  A primary event would be the personal argument at a local club between my brother Mark and off-duty police officer Mark Marowski that resulted in Marowski calling in to the Salamanca police to have my brother arrested for DWI on his way home.  That altercation, however, is not even mentioned in the police report (on that issue see most recently post of February 28, 2025).

Related information for a timeline would be statements made by members of the club who were present during that altercation.  The police report refers to interviews of members of the club who claimed that Mark had been behaving “unusually” and “not like himself” the day of the truck fire.  However, Atty. Kelly reported that at their meeting in 2005, the lead investigator, Edward Kalfas, told him that he had not found anyone who had seen Mark out the day of the truck fire (see post of November 29, 2021).

Kalfas, then, presumably made an error in the police report, confusing the two dates.  If he had made a timeline, which generally includes both dates and specific times of the day, that mistake would probably not have happened.  As it stands, though, his error keeps Ofc. Marowski out of the picture and insinuates abnormal, potentially unstable behavior on Mark’s part.  (On an anonymous letter reporting that Marowski was having an affair with Mark’s wife at the time of the truck fire, see post of August 11, 2014.)

Events on the day of the truck fire, of course, would be crucial to a timeline.  The only references in the police report to Mark’s activities during the day prior to the fire come from Mark’s wife Susan in her witness statement.  She states that “Mark had been drinking beer and maybe slightly intoxicated during the afternoon”; that they “were watching television around 7:30 pm”; and that “around 8:45 Mark left the house to go [to] downtown Salamanca.”

A problem with Susan’s reference to Mark during the afternoon is that several individuals told me (and, I believe, reported to Kalfas) that they had tried to reach him by phone during the day but got no answer.  Atty. Kelly found this discrepancy problematic and suggested to the two NYSP investigators at their meeting in 2005 that it would be useful to know if Susan had gone to work the day of the truck fire.  Apparently, they did not check with the local school where she was a secretary.  A timeline including these discrepancies might have encouraged Kalfas to dig more deeply to try to resolve them.

While Susan refers to Mark leaving at 8:45 p.m. for downtown Salamanca, Kalfas acknowledged that he had found no one who saw Mark out that day, including that evening.  It is not clear if Kalfas checked all the possible clubs or bars.  But clearly it was very important to find out where Mark was in the hours before 11:00 p.m. or so, the time of Susan’s 911 call about the truck fire.

Perhaps Kalfas’s unwarranted assumption that Mark committed suicide (see post of November 30, 2023) blinded him to the possibility of foul play, and therefore he did not consider it crucial to learn where Mark had been in the hours before the fire.  Yet, as mentioned in the post of August 11, 2014, the writer of the anonymous letter sent to me stated that Mark was at the house of a neighbor right before the fire and that the neighbor indicated that Mark was not so intoxicated as the police believed.  There is no mention in that letter of depression or a suicidal tendency on Mark’s part, either.

Had Kalfas interviewed the neighbor whom Mark had visited the evening of the truck fire?  (On problems with Kalfas’s interviews of Mark’s close friends, see post of September 30, 2024.)  Had he also interviewed the writer of the anonymous letter, also quite possibly a neighbor?  If he had, did Kalfas deliberately ignore information that was crucial to an investigative timeline and should have been entered into a timeline?

If not, Kalfas might well have found out that kind of essential information by checking Mark’s and Susan’s phone records (landline and cell).  Mark might very well have called the neighbor before going over to visit that person.  A check of the phone records would certainly have filled in some of the information relevant to a full, precise investigative timeline, including the phone conversation that Susan states she was having when she saw the flames in the field across from their house (on which, see posts of February 28 and April 30, 2019).

More on Officer Mark Marowski and the NYSP Interview in Late 2014

A previous post (September 28, 2023) discussed the extent to which a problematic Salamanca police officer was interviewed in connection with the investigation of my brother Mark’s death.  This post points out ironic aspects of the “interview” of that police officer in late 2014.

As several posts have discussed (see July 28, 2011; April 18, 2013; September 14, 2014; October 17, 2014; July 15, 2015; and June 21, 2016), it has been a matter of concern that the very day before his truck fire, my brother was involved in a personal argument with an off-duty police officer named Mark Marowski at a local club.  Immediately following the altercation, Ofc. Marowski (reportedly very intoxicated himself) called in to the Salamanca police to stop my brother on his way home, which resulted in my brother getting arrested for DWI.

Shockingly, there is no reference to this altercation in the police report.  Instead, the lead investigator of Mark’s death, Edward Kalfas, refers only to comments by members of the Holy Cross club that my brother had behaved “unusually” at that time.

An email in September 2015 from a former Salamanca police officer who indicated that he had been following my blog for about 2 years commented extensively about Ofc. Mark Marowski, with whom he had worked from 1974 to 1978 (see post of September 13, 2015).  According to James Campbell (then a Michigan police official), Marowski had a problem with alcohol and prescription drugs even in the 1970’s.

Among other negative traits, Ofc. Campbell referred to Marowski as a “consummate liar.”  That assessment was reinforced by Marowski’s own brother.  In an email in May 2016, David Marowski mentioned that he had been following my blog on my brother’s death and wanted to provide some insights on Marowski’s character.  According to his own brother, Marowski “has never been trustworthy.  He has been a liar as far back as High School.”

As discussed in a previous post (see September 28, 2023), all efforts to have the NYSP look into the altercation between my brother and Marowski the day before the truck fire proved fruitless.  According to an anonymous letter sent to me in 2014 (see post of August 11, 2014), my brother’s wife and Ofc. Marowski were having an affair at the time of my brother’s death and were observed several times riding together on a 4-wheeler.  

In late 2014, I reported my concern about this latest information and the argument at the Holy Cross Club, among other issues, to NYSP Capt. Steven Nigrelli and also provided Capt. Nigrelli with a copy of the anonymous letter.  Capt. Nigrelli said 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).

The summary of the interview of Marowski provided by Capt. Nigrelli indicates that Marowski was asked about (1) “his knowledge of the incident surrounding Mark's death” and (2) his relationship with my brother and his wife.  On the first issue, the summary states only: “with no new information developed.”  On the second issue, the summary reports that Marowski “knew both Mark and Susan since they all grew up in the area” and “denied any romantic relationship with Susan Pavlock.”

On his relationship with my brother, Marowski seems to have lived up to his reputation (at least for James Campbell and David Marowski) as a liar.  He apparently failed to mention that, according to several individuals, he had argued with my brother on numerous occasions at the Holy Cross Club and, according to a bartender at that club, had actually bragged about his role in Mark’s arrest for DWI on the very day my brother lay dying in the burn unit and calls were coming in at the club with updates on his condition.  Was Marowski truthful about his relationship with my brother Mark’s wife?

The NYSP officer assigned by Capt. Nigrelli to interview Marowski (presumably Christopher Iwanko) apparently took Marowski’s responses as fact.  It thus seems to have been no real interview at all.  From the beginning of the investigation of Mark’s death and right up the chain of the NYSP hierarchy, Ofc. Marowski remained protected by his shield, even after he was forced to retire because of his own DWI in 2006.

Yet More on the Problem of the 911 Call

Previous posts (see July 1, 2014; September 29, 2021; and July 7, 2022) have dealt with the problem that in the investigation of my brother Mark’s death the NYSP appeared to have ignored the 911 call made by my brother’s wife Susan the night of his truck fire.  This post expands on that issue.

As the earlier posts discuss (see esp. July 7, 2022), a statement in the police report by the first NYSP officer on the scene that he responded to “a report of a male subject possibly attempting to burn himself in his vehicle” raises questions about the source of the potential implication of suicide.  Does it relate directly to the 911 call made by Mark’s wife, or is it an inference made by an official who relayed the call to Trooper Chandler?

As the earlier posts discuss (see esp. September 29, 2021), in September 2005, when Atty. Michael Kelly met with NYSP Sr. Inv. Wolfe and Inv. Edward Kalfas, the lead detective in the investigation of Mark’s death, he asked if Kalfas had reviewed the 911 call.  As Kelly informed me, Kalfas replied that he had heard it but couldn’t remember it, and so Wolfe offered to retrieve the tape of the 911 call.  Yet Wolfe abruptly changed his mind, deciding not to retrieve the 911 call unless the case was re-opened.

An official who heard the 911 call remembered it several years later and expressed concerns about it. Furthermore, that individual indicated that the 911 call was quite lengthy, noting that a number of things were mentioned before Susan referred specifically to the fire.  Kalfas, however, does not appear to have shown much interest in the 911 call.  He does not mention the 911 call in his narrative in the police report, and so it is not clear if he gave the kind of careful attention that 911 calls deserve, especially to details that might affect the investigation.

My FOIL requests for an audio or transcript of the 911 call were unsuccessful (see posts of September 22 and October 27, 2011). The NYSP Central Records Bureau stated that they had “failed to locate any records responsive to [my] request.”  A police official mentioned that it can take considerable effort to find records in storage. How thorough a search did Central Records make to locate the tape?

In a conversation with a member of NYSP Internal Affairs, I was advised to contact Capt. Steven Nigrelli over my concerns about the case.  Through communications by phone and email, I brought up a number of issues with Capt. Nigrelli, including the concerns of the official who had heard the 911 call and was troubled by it.  As mentioned in a previous post (July 7, 2022), that individual later confirmed that he had brought up his concerns about the 911 call in the interview with the BCI.  Yet when Capt. Nigrelli responded in January 2015 with a summary of the results of the interviews by the BCI, there was no mention of that individual’s concerns about the 911 call or anything else that individual relayed to the BCI.

Although Capt. Nigrelli did not reveal what member or members of the BCI conducted the interviews, I was informed by two of the individuals that they were interviewed by Christopher Iwanko.  It is unclear why Capt. Nigrelli chose then-Sr. Inv. Iwanko to conduct the interviews.  Iwanko was involved in the original investigation, which very quickly jumped to the conclusion that Mark had committed suicide and ignored or glossed over facts pointing toward foul play.

According to the police report, then-Inv. Christopher Iwanko attended Mark’s autopsy, “taking photographs, fingerprints and a blood kit from the victim.”  When an independent criminologist phoned the NYSP on my behalf in 2011 to ask about obtaining photos of the scene, he happened to reach Iwanko, who told him that they usually purge the records after five years.  The criminologist informed me that at the end of the call when he asked for the investigator’s name, Iwanko hesitated several seconds before revealing it.  It is strange that the investigator apparently seemed reluctant to identify himself.

What is most troubling about the summaries of Iwanko’s interviews is that two of them contradict what the individuals interviewed had told me before I expressed my concerns to Capt. Nigrelli and what they affirmed to me after they had been interviewed.  One of those interviewed by Iwanko was in fact very upset when I read him the summary of his purported interview.  He insisted that the summary did not reflect his statements to the investigator about what he had directly observed of Mark and his interactions with others close to him.

The summary of the interview of the individual who had heard the 911 call and had specific concerns about it completely ignores that issue.  Here is the content of Iwanko’s interview of that individual: the interviewee “could not offer any other specific memories other than previously provided or any evidence to prove foul play.”  Nothing further is stated.  There is no mention whatsoever of the 911 call in the summary.

All these efforts to find out specific information concerning the 911 call about Mark’s truck fire failed.  The NYSP were repeatedly unwilling to examine the 911 call.  They ignored another official’s explicit concerns about that 911 call.  The 911 should have been thoroughly scrutinized but was ignored, much like the pool of Mark’s blood found on his driveway, the wound to his forehead, and the suspicious presence of a gas can in the cab of his truck.  What can account for the NYSP’s precipitous focus on suicide and their failure to press forward on anything that did not conform to that theory?  Was it merely a lack of real interest in the case?

To What Extent Did the NYSP Investigator Interview Mark’s Close Friends?

The lead investigator of my brother’s death Edward Kalfas told Atty. Michael Kelly that he had not found anyone who saw Mark out the day of his truck fire.  An anonymous letter sent to me, however, stated that just before the fire my brother had been at the house of a neighbor, who said that Mark could not have had the kind of high blood alcohol level the police claimed (see esp. post of August 11, 2014).  Several of Mark’s close friends were neighbors, that is, they lived within a mile or so of his house in rural Great Valley, NY, and saw him on a regular basis.

It was certainly important for the NYSP investigators to find out if anyone had seen Mark in the evening around the time he returned home just before his truck burned in the field across from his house.  Inv. Kalfas stated that Mark was depressed about his DWI the day before the truck fire (on the problematic circumstances leading up to that DWI, see most recently post of February 28, 2021) and, with no real basis for that claim, stated very early on in the investigation that it looked as if my brother had committed suicide (see most recently post of November 30, 2023).

How many of Mark’s close friends who saw him regularly were actually interviewed, and to what extent were they questioned?  The police report that I obtained through a FOIL request in September 2004 is heavily redacted, and in Kalfas’s narrative the names of all private citizens interviewed are blacked out, with the exception of Mark’s wife Susan and my own name (in particular, concerning a phone conversation with Inv. Kalfas on September 29, 2003, that does not accurately summarize information I gave the investigator).

Although the name of the individual is blacked out, Kalfas’s entry in the police report for November 22, 2003, clearly represents his interview with Mark’s friend Jim Poole, whom Mark had known since high school.  Kalfas quotes Jim as follows: “[W]hen he got the DWI with his name in the paper, I think it pushed him over the edge.”  Yet when I myself spoke by telephone with Jim Poole on November 11, 2003, he said that he considered Mark "a proud man" who would be humiliated by publicity about the DWI, especially because he did a lot of charity work, but added that he did not find that a very convincing as a motive for suicide (see post of November 1, 2012).  Jim also commented on the shouting that went on between my brother and his wife whenever he happened to be at their house and mentioned that, as far as he knew, the last person who saw my brother was Todd Lindell, another close friend of Mark’s. 

To judge by his entry on Jim Poole in the police report, Kalfas appears to have asked Jim only about Mark’s drinking and about a possible motive for suicide.  He seems not to have been interested in finding out who had contact with my brother the day of his truck fire, and he was obviously not interested in finding out about any other relevant issue.

Kalfas’s interview of Mark’s friend Jim Wright is revealed in a witness statement dated October 24, 2003.  Although Jim’s signature is blacked out, the identities of the five individuals who gave witness statements were left unredacted by the NYSP, presumably inadvertently.  Oddly, Jim Wright’s is the only witness statement by any close friend of Mark’s, whether a neighbor or not.

Stating that he knew Mark for many years and that they were very good friends, Jim mentions that he picked Mark up from his DWI the day before the truck fire.  Although noting that Mark was a regular smoker, he contradicts rumors that Mark caught on fire as he was filling up his tank, since he knew for certain that Mark never let his tank go below half-full (and therefore presumably would have had no reason to fill it up late at night at home).  Jim ends by insisting that Mark had no “suicidal tendencies.”

As with Jim Poole, it seems clear that Kalfas was most interested to know if Jim Wright thought Mark was suicidal.  There is nothing in Jim Wright’s witness statement about what Jim and his wife Alexis revealed to Kalfas (presumably at the time of Kalfas’s interview of Jim) about the reaction of Mark’s wife when they dropped Mark off at his house from the DWI (see post of August 22, 2012).  When later asked by Atty. Kelly about the absence of that information, Kalfas replied that he didn’t consider it important.

Like Jim Poole and Jim Wright, Mark’s friend Sidney Lindell had known him for many years and saw him frequently.  In a phone conversation with me on December 16, 2003, Sid said that he had seen Mark about a week before his death.  He also mentioned that he was surprised to learn that Mark had started drinking again because he had been completely sober for years.  Since Kalfas seemed to think that my brother was an inveterate alcoholic, Sid’s information would have provided Kalfas a useful corrective to distorted views about Mark’s drinking.  However, in a later conversation, Sid told me that he had not been interviewed by the NYSP investigator.

In a phone conversation with me on November 13, 2003, Mark’s friend Todd Lindell mentioned that he had seen my brother on a daily basis for years and had an "open door" policy for him.  Todd informed me that he had retrieved Mark’s truck from impoundment the evening of his DWI and stated that on the day before the truck fire Mark was at his house well into the evening.  Without any explanation, Todd suddenly said, “Mark would be alive today if he had not gotten the DWI" (see most recently post of February 28, 2020, and March 31, 2021).  Although I was later unable to reach Todd, that comment suggests that he may have had some potentially important information for the investigation.  However, he indicated that he had not been interviewed.

In his narrative in the police report for October 25, 2002, Kalfas reports his interviews of three individuals, all of whom, he says, “are friends and neighbors of the victim.”  Kalfas’s summary of these interviews records only references to Mark’s drinking.  In addition to a more extended comment by one of the interviewees about seeing Mark sitting in his truck drinking, the investigator lumps together their views on that subject, as follows: “Each agreed that the victim used to hang around their houses a lot and was often drinking.”

Were Sidney Lindell and his cousin Todd Lindell among these three individuals, even though they told me they were not interviewed?  If so, it is difficult to reconcile the disparity between what Kalfas records and what each one said to me.

 

More on What a Neighbor of Mark’s Said about the Night of the Truck Fire

Two previous posts (April 20, 2011, and August 31, 2021) discuss information reported to me about a ruckus on my brother Mark’s property immediately before his truck went into the field across from his house and burst into flames and the failure to follow up in 2010 by an investigator for the Cattaraugus County District Attorney, who was also the NYSP Senior Investigator at the time of Mark’s death.  This post expands on the two earlier ones.

As the two previous posts observe, the report of a ruckus on Mark’s property was brought to my attention by a chance encounter with the secretary of the local Catholic church in late September 2009.  The secretary, Judy Bess, referred to a conversation that she had with a member of the congregation named Gene Woodworth, who was a neighbor of my brother.  According to the secretary, Woodworth said the following: (a) he happened to be outdoors and heard a ruckus going on outside Mark's house; (b) he observed the truck go down the driveway and saw Mark; and (c) he then rushed over to the scene and even helped bat the flames out on Mark.

As the earlier posts also discuss, when I telephoned him the following day, Woodworth gave me a very different account of what he had heard and done.  Woodworth said that he had seen lights flashing and found out what was happening from another neighbor, Dan Smith, who was leaving as he arrived.  Stating that he never saw Mark at all, Woodworth added that he thought "something [had] happened on the property" and surmised that Mark had backed the truck all the way across the road.  The following day I reported to Judy Bess these discrepancies with her summary of the conversation she had with Woodworth.  Judy, however, insisted that she had reported Woodworth’s statements accurately and added that he had referred specifically to “screaming” coming from Mark’s property.

As the earlier posts also indicate, when I met with Cattaraugus County D. A. Lori Rieman and John Ensell in May 2010, I mentioned Judy Bess’s summary of what Gene Woodworth had told her, including the issue of a ruckus on Mark’s property right before the truck fire.  Ensell immediately insisted that it was not true.  I also explained how Woodworth’s account to me differed radically from what Judy said he had told her.  Although D. A. Rieman instructed Ensell to contact Judy Bess about her conversation with Woodworth, Ensell replied to me by e-mail in December 2010 that he could not find a phone number for Judy.  He also stated that he had interviewed Woodworth, who had little to say about the night of Mark’s truck fire, only that he “saw yellow off in the distance, walked about half way down, and turned around and came back” and that “anything said after that would have been purely speculation.”

Judy Bess apparently was never interviewed, and the issue seems to have been dropped by both Ensell and D. A. Rieman.  In my own conversation with Woodworth, I asked if he had been interviewed by the NYSP during the investigation into Mark’s death.  Woodworth replied that he had not been interviewed.  Given that he lived just down the road from my brother’s house and knew Mark, it seems very odd that the NYSP investigators overlooked Woodworth as a potential source of information.

A few years after my meeting with Rieman and Ensell, another individual mentioned a conversation with Woodworth about the night of Mark’s truck fire.  The details differ from Woodworth’s statements to me and from Ensell’s summary of his interview with Woodworth as well as from what Judy Bess reported to me.  According to that individual, Woodworth stated that his wife had seen the flames from their house and that he had gone up the road to the scene.  As that individual also reported, Woodworth did not want to talk any further about the night of Mark’s truck fire but did say that he thought it likely that Mark had been murdered.

Did the NYSP Investigators Fully Look into the Problem of the Gas Can?

 

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.