What Happened to the Recording of the 911 Call?

    This post comes on the eve of the anniversary of my brother Mark's suspicious truck fire on September 23, 2003.  Like the previous post on the photographs of the scene, it is concerned with what happened to the recording of the 911 call by Mark's wife Susan at 10:55 that night.

    The 911 call is a potentially important piece of information about the events on the night of September 23 that cost my brother his life.  It was the first eyewitness statement made about the truck fire.  As is clear from cases I've read about and seen documented on television, such 911 calls have proved to be valuable reference points to check what is said afterwards by individuals and to help resolve various contradictions. 

    In this case, the 911 call seems important because confusing and contradictory statements were made about several issues, both on the scene of the fire and afterwards.  For instance, as I reported in the original post below (September 22, 2010), there is a contradiction between the witness statements of Mark's wife and a neighbor/EMT: Susan states that she tried to put out the flames on Mark, but Cheryl Simcox states that the white sweatshirt Susan said she used was clean, without any soot or skin on it.  Although for legal reasons I cannot mention on this blog everything I learned, I reported relevant information to authorities during the investigation and afterwards.  One crucial issue concerns how the fire started.  The fire investigator's report states that the tank of Mark's truck was about three-quarters full.  But various individuals reported to me that they were told the morning after the fire or later that Mark was burned specifically while putting gasoline into the tank after the truck ran out of gas.

    In my discussions with Atty. Tony Tanke and with Atty. Michael Kelly, I wondered why Trooper David Chandler, the first N.Y.S.P. officer on the scene of the truck fire, states in the police report that he "responded to Whalen Rd, Great Valley for a report of a male subject possibly attempting to burn himself in his vehicle."  Where did the trooper get that idea?  Mark's wife says nothing like that in her witness statement, and it does not appear anywhere else in the police report.  As I stated in my original post and at greater length in the second one, there are many compelling reasons why my brother would not have committed suicide.  In addition, as several professionals have indicated, suicide by fire is extremely rare in the United States.

    At his meeting with the two State Police investigators in September 2005, Atty. Kelly asked Inv. Edward Kalfas what the 911 call said.  The investigator replied that he had listened to the recording but couldn't remember what it said.  Sr. Inv. John Wolfe then indicated to Atty. Kelly that he would call to retrieve the 911 recording.  However, in November 2005 Sr. Inv. Wolfe informed Atty. Kelly that he would not check the 911 call, as well as other things, unless he decided to re-open the case after looking at the medical records.  (Of course, Sr. Inv. Wolfe chose not to re-open the case, based on his own perusal of the complex medical records and no discussion of them with Mark's physician at the burn unit, Dr. Edward Piotrowski.)  Given the various confusing statements about the scene of the fire, it is difficult to understand why the senior investigator would not go back to review that 911 call.  

    In late May of this year, on the advice of criminologist Will Savive, I made a FOIL request for an audio and transcript of the 911 call made by Mark's wife to report the truck fire.  On June 29, I received an e-mail response from Captain Laurie M. Wagner, Records Access Officer, Central Records Bureau of the New York State Police, to my FOIL request for the 911 call.  It read as follows:

    "Reference is made to your e-mail correspondence dated May 20, 2011, received at this office on May 23, 2011, requesting a copy of the audio and transcript of a 911 call made to Cattaraugus County 911 pertaining to an incident (#343029) that occurred in Great Valley on September 23, 2003, pursuant to the requirements of Article 6 of the Public Officers Law (Freedom of Information).  Please be advised that a search of our files failed to locate any records responsive to your request.  Any appeals may be addressed and mailed to the Records Appeal Officer, Administration, at the above address."

    What does "failed to locate any records responsive to your request" mean?  It would appear that the recording of the 911 call has been destroyed.  But I have not made the "appeal" referred to in the e-mail reply above.  Readers of my previous post may have seen the comment by Frank Romer about the N.Y.S.P. response to his FOIL request for "the written procedures and policies governing the purging of files," after he was informed that the photos of the scene of my brother's truck fire had been destroyed.  I quote the relevant part: "The NYSP’s reply was completely uninformative. They sent two sheets from an unspecified document and stamped NON-RESPONSIVE in large letters, with a brief indication that files could be purged after five years. I certainly hope the NYSP are not engaged in destroying other evidence in this unsolved case."  Under such circumstances, I'm not sure what the point is of making an appeal.

    I await the day when I can visit my brother at Calvary cemetery and finally say, "Requiescas in pace."  But there can be no peace without justice.