An Unexpected Phone Call

This post concerns an unexpected phone call I recently received from a man who identified himself as Pete Rapacioli, demanding to know why I had put him in my blog.  Since the original post (September 22, 2010) reported my concern about the alleged telephone call between Rapacioli and my brother’s wife Susan between 10:30 and 10:55 just before Mark’s truck fire, I was surprised to hear from Mr. Rapacioli at this point.  However, the most recent post (May 15, 2013) picks up that issue at greater length.  Rapacioli stated that around thirty people had called him in the previous two days about being in my blog and added that he was advised to call me about it.  As the phone call turned out to be quite lengthy, I will not summarize the entire conversation here but will refer to points relevant to issues that have come up in recent posts.

Rapacioli proclaimed that he had nothing to do with Mark’s death, insisting that Mark was his friend.  I explained to Rapacioli that if he read the blog carefully, he would see that I did not accuse him but rather exposed problematic points that the police investigation did not pursue fully or at all.  He informed me that he had not read my blog and did not plan to, adding that he didn’t go on the Internet.  Referring to my right to question the police investigation, I stated that the phone records should have been checked not just to verify the call between 10:30 and 10:55 but also to find out if Mark made or received any calls the day of the truck fire.

Replying that he thought that phone records were checked only in the case of a crime, Rapacioli said that the night of the truck fire he called about the football pool.  He explained that he had got in touch with Mark every Monday and Tuesday for this NFL pool and added that he would routinely take the results to “Susie” at the high school the next day and that she would run them off.  He stated that on that particular Tuesday Mark had not called him and he had not been able to reach Mark.  He added that he had tried numerous times throughout the day to reach my brother.  In November 2003, however, Rapacioli told me only that he had called, but failed to reach, Mark early in the day.  In addition, my brother’s wife Susan says in her witness statement that Mark was at home in the afternoon and that they had been watching television together in the early evening before he went out at 8:45.  It would have been unlike Mark not to answer the phone, and his wife would presumably have answered if he didn't while they were home together.  When I said that 10:30 seemed late for a phone call and mentioned what I had been told about Susan’s habit of going to bed very early, Rapacioli simply replied that he had often called Mark around 11 p.m.

Rapacioli further explained that he had called “Susie” and had given her the name of the winner and the amount.  However, at another point in the conversation, Rapacioli stated that it had been necessary for Mark and him to coordinate their information to determine the winner.  So it is unclear to me how he was able to give my brother’s wife that particular information if he had not reached Mark that day to coordinate their results.  In addition, Rapacioli did not explain why he had been on the phone for so long with Susan or what they had talked about beyond the pool results for nearly half an hour.

Furthermore, I mentioned to Rapacioli that when I spoke with him in November 2003, he said nothing to me about being on the phone with Mark’s wife at the very moment she saw the flames in the field.  He replied, “You knew about the call anyway.”  As I informed him, however, I knew nothing about that phone call until much later.

I also raised my concern that Mark’s truck fire took place just one day after he was set up for a DWI by Mark Marowski at the Holy Cross Club (see April 18, 2013).  I added that it seemed problematic that no one who witnessed the argument at the Holy Cross Club seemed willing to admit publicly that they had been there.  I then asked Rapacioli if he had been there that day.  He replied that he had not been there and emphasized that he didn’t drink much and would not have gone to the Club in the afternoon (when the argument between my brother and Ofc. Mark Marowski took place) but rather around 5 or in the early evening.

In the previous post, I mentioned being told that Rapacioli was interviewed a second time, though no second interview appears to be recorded in the police report.  In the phone conversation on June 5, Rapacioli happened to say that he had been interviewed by the police several times.  However, he did not indicate why he had been questioned several times.  

Also in the previous post, I mentioned a comment made to me in November 2003 by a friend of my brother’s named Jack Plonka that Pete Rapacioli planned to read the police report because he had a relative on the police force.  Referring to Jack as his cousin, Rapacioli replied that maybe the relative Jack meant was Denny Ambuske, Rapacioli’s ex-brother-in-law, who had worked on the police force.  But he quickly stated that Denny had already left the force long before Mark’s death.  Rapacioli added that he didn’t know why Jack had told me that.  To my recollection, Jack was trying to be helpful because he was clearly shocked at my brother’s death and didn’t understand how Mark could have been burned to death.

Another issue I brought up in a recent post (March 13, 2013) concerns what Mark’s neighbors might have seen or heard the night of the fire.  There I expressed my surprise at a statement to me by Cheryl Simcox that the closest neighbors of my brother’s on Cross Rd. had slept through the entire incident.  In the phone conversation on June 5, Rapacioli mentioned that his daughter and her husband lived in the house on Cross Rd. at the intersection of Whalen Rd. and said that they had slept through the incident.  Although I asked, Rapacioli did not tell me his daughter’s name.  But I reiterated the concern I expressed in my post that the occupants of that house, now known to be Rapacioli’s daughter and her husband, could have slept through the sirens of police cars and fire trucks and through all the noise of the helicopter landing in the field or near to it and that they apparently did not hear the explosion which Cheryl Simcox said rocked their trailer, very close to that house.  As I was informed, numerous neighbors rushed to the scene: they had presumably been roused by the noise, especially of the explosion and the emergency vehicles.

In view of this recent conversation with Rapacioli, I continue to maintain my position that the telephone records should have been checked.