A Follow-up on Mark’s Blood Alcohol Level

The previous post discussed from a scientific perspective problems with the authorities' view that my brother caused his own death because he was very intoxicated, as indicated by the .25 serum alcohol level in his autopsy report.  Indeed, if the .25 post-mortem alcohol level is correct, then Mark would have had approximately a .46 blood alcohol level at the time of his truck fire.  This post, which marks the tenth anniversary of my brother’s suspicious truck fire, further considers the issue of his drinking around that time. 

The New York State Police viewed Mark's DWI the day before the fire as further support that he was very drunk at the time he was so severely burned.  It is not necessary here to elaborate on the highly problematic circumstances of my brother's arrest following a personal argument with then Salamanca police officer Mark Marowski, who had a serious alcohol problem himself (see posts of September 22, 2010, July 28, 2011, and April 18, 2013).  However, the issue of Mark's blood alcohol level at the time of his DWI needs to be addressed.  Shortly after my brother's death, Inv. Edward Kalfas informed me that when Mark was arrested for DWI on September 22, his blood alcohol level was high, around the same as recorded in the autopsy report.  Just recently, I made a FOIL request for the records related to my brother's arrest and now have those documents.

According to the records, a breath analysis test revealed that when Mark was arrested for DWI on Central Ave. in Salamanca, he had a .28 alcohol content.  That alcohol level, needless to say, is very high.  Although breathalyzer tests are not flawless and can be affected by a variety of conditions (see, for instance, the concise summary on the website AlcoholAlert!), it seems clear that my brother was highly intoxicated.  But that fact needs to be interpreted properly.  There are at least three significant points that should be considered.

First of all, drinking heavily on one particular day does not mean that the individual will necessarily be drunk the next day.  In Mark's case, it is important to note that he had never had a DWI before.  One of the forms in his arrest report has a space for the police to list prior convictions, including DWI.  There is no entry, which confirms what family sources and friends of Mark's said, namely that he had never been stopped for DWI before.  My brother had in fact been a licensed driver in New York State for thirty-five years and had driven frequently in neighboring Erie and Chautauqua counties as well as Cattaraugus without being stopped for any appearance of impaired driving.  Furthermore, several individuals informed me that they had seen my brother at his job as a security guard around the time of his death and that he had clearly not been drinking.  What caused Mark to do some heavy drinking in the months prior to his death is perhaps a subject better left for another post.

Second, after returning from his arrest, Mark himself told Alexis Wright and Todd Lindell separately that he would be careful because he wanted to keep his driver's license in order to get to his job as a security guard.  As the records show, he was arrested at 3:50 p.m. and was given a breath analysis test at 4:55 at the Salamanca Police Department.  It could not have been a pleasant experience to be held in custody, even for a couple of hours.  Mark should then be given credit as a reasonable individual who had learned his lesson.

Third, the .28 alcohol reading of my brother's DWI has a bearing on the problem of that .25 post-mortem serum alcohol, which his attending physician at the burn unit insisted was wrong.  The police record states that my brother was stopped because he was “weaving back and forth in [the] lane” and that he “failed to keep right.”  The same form indicates that the arresting officer also observed the following: the odor of alcoholic beverage, glassy eyes, impaired speech, and impaired motor coordination.  It lists the following specific field tests that Mark failed: walk and turn, one leg stand, finger to nose, finger count, and reciting the alphabet.  Thus, as recorded in his arrest documents, my brother could not function properly with a .28 alcohol level. 

How, then, could Mark have functioned with a presumed .46 blood alcohol level at the time of his truck fire?  If he could not drive without weaving back and forth on Central Ave. with a .28 blood alcohol, he certainly could not have backed his truck down his long driveway in a perfectly straight line and fifty feet into the field directly opposite the driveway (see post of September 1, 2013, on the tire marks) with a .46 blood alcohol level.  Furthermore, not only would Mark have been unable to back his truck down the driveway with a .46 BAC; he would almost certainly have been in a coma, if not actually dead (see, for example, data on the website of the Redfern Health Center of Clemson University).  Yet the State Police insist that Mark did back his truck down the driveway and into the field, where he spilled or poured gasoline on himself and lit up a match or lighter, setting his truck on fire and inflicting third-degree burns over ninety percent of his body.  Why didn't Inv. Kalfas, who acknowledged that he had gone and checked on Mark's alcohol level on the day of the DWI, realize the obvious problem with the position that my brother was very drunk the night of the fire, yet at the same time managed to do things that would have been impossible in that state?

Another factor calling the credibility of the .25 post-mortem alcohol into question is the time frame of my brother's activities the evening of the truck fire.  According to his wife's witness statement, Mark was “slightly intoxicated” in the afternoon.  Susan is presumably referring to Mark's condition in the late afternoon, since she worked until 4 p.m.  She also observes that she and Mark were watching television around 7:30 and that he left about 8:45 to go to downtown Salamanca.  She says nothing about Mark drinking during the evening before he left.  One would thus assume that my brother was not drinking in the early evening, especially given how angry Susan had been about his DWI the day before (see post of August 22, 2012).  In that case, there was a very narrow window for my brother to acquire a .46 blood alcohol level, that is, to judge by his wife's witness statement, between 8:45 and 10:30 (roughly when Mark must have returned). 

How many drinks would Mark have had to consume in that period in order to produce a .46 blood alcohol level?  The Redfern Health Center website, for instance, provides charts factoring in gender, weight, and the number of hours one has been drinking in order to calculate a BAC.  According to those guidelines, my brother would have had to consume more than 25 standard drinks in less than two hours.  Mark's blood alcohol level the night of the truck fire in fact cannot be determined, but to insist on the accuracy of that .25 post-mortem serum alcohol reading is ludicrous.

In the first post, I reported a statement made to me by Todd Lindell that “Mark would be alive today if he had not gotten the DWI.”  In my conversation with Todd, he affirmed that Mark had not been suicidal and that he had been concerned about keeping his driver’s license. Todd’s comment implies that my brother's arrest itself was a primary factor in his death.  As mentioned in the initial post, I was not able to get any clarification on that suggestive remark because Todd did not return my calls.  The State Police, however, should have pressed him about it.  In early 2007, Lt. Allen told me that some of the individuals whose statements I had reported denied making them.  Was Todd one of those individuals?  If so, why?

Only the New York State Police know why they did not investigate Mark's suspicious truck fire vigorously, but they ignored or glossed over far too many things.  It is just as difficult to comprehend why the State Police refused to re-open my brother's case in 2005 and later.  But some important things need to be stated: (1) Mark did not cause the wound to his forehead that appeared to one firefighter to have been inflicted by a golf club and that caused his attending physician considerable concern.  Someone else did.  (2) Mark did not put a gas can in the cab of his truck instead of the back where he always had.  Someone else did.  (3) Mark did not back his truck down the driveway and into the field.  Someone else did.  (4) Mark did not pour gasoline all over his body.  Someone else did.

A decade after my brother's death, it is time for another government agency to pursue this case.  Those responsible for burning Mark to death should be held accountable for their actions.  And, as one relative recently put it, those who helped to cover it up should also have to pay.