Problematic Discrepancies in Mark’s Case

The copy of the police report on my brother Mark’s suspicious death that was sent to me in late 2004 following a FOIL request caused considerable concern, not only because of the excessive redactions but also because of the questionable nature of a number of entries.

By the time I received the police report, it had become clear that the investigation was sloppy and careless.  The report itself only reinforced those concerns.  In an entry for 9/29/03, misrepresentation of my telephone interview with Edward Kalfas, the lead N.Y.S.P. investigator in the case, immediately struck me as problematic.

I had asked to speak with Kalfas specifically to bring to his attention a telephone conversation the night of my brother’s death in which Mark’s daughter Christie told me that he had left her a suicide letter (on the questionable nature of that claim, see esp. post of November 23, 2013).  Yet Kalfas’s entry makes no mention of my report of that shocking claim, which was the purpose of my call.  Instead, it reads as follows: “Barbara Pavlock states that she has heard rumors from around town and has an unsubstantiated theory that the fire was not suicide or an accident.”

By September 2005, when Buffalo criminal attorney Michael Kelly spoke in person with Kalfas and his immediate superior John Wolfe, a considerable amount of solid information about my brother’s death had been relayed to me, especially by Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit and by a firefighter on the scene of the truck fire.  Kelly met with the N.Y.S.P. investigators to pose specific questions about the investigation and to urge them to re-open the case.

Among several questions, Kelly asked if Kalfas had specifically learned that Mark was at the Holy Cross Athletic Club the day of the fire. Kalfas replied that he had not learned that Mark was at that club the day of the fire.  Kelly also asked if Kalfas had obtained any evidence that Mark had been drinking anywhere the day of the fire.  Kalfas again replied that he had found no evidence that Mark had been drinking anywhere the day of the fire.

Here, however, is what Kalfas states in his entry in the police report for 9/25/03: "Member interviewed numerous Holy Cross Athletic Club members who were all in agreement that the victim had been behaving unusually and was very upset about getting arrested for DWI the day before the fire."  It seems odd, however, that he does not mention any names at all, and there are no redactions at that point to conceal the identity of anyone he might have interviewed.  In addition, there is no reason for redacting witnesses’ names or their information, since the basic reason for redactions is to protect sensitive police procedures, which is not an issue here.

How could Kalfas have learned from members of the HCAC that Mark “was very upset about getting arrested for DWI the day before the fire,” when the investigator himself admitted that he had found no one who had seen Mark out drinking at that club or at any other place the day of the fire and Mark did not seem really to have the opportunity to go to the club the previous evening?

The DWI happened the day before the fire, and Mark’s truck was impounded after he was arrested.  His friend Todd Lindell told me that he himself had retrieved the truck from the impoundment that evening and that Mark had gone to Todd’s house, where he remained until late.  My brother, then, would appear not to have had time to go to the club before it closed that evening after the DWI.

Kalfas himself admitted to Kelly that he could find no one who had seen Mark out the next day (the day of the fire) at the Holy Cross Club or anywhere else.  No one has ever come forward publicly to admit to seeing Mark out that day.  Only the writer of the anonymous letter sent to me in 2014 provides some information (see post of August 11, 2014), namely that Mark was at the house of a neighbor not long before the fire.

How can one reconcile the discrepancy between what Kalfas wrote in the police report and what he told Kelly?  Could Kelly have possibly misunderstood Kalfas?  Was it simply a careless misstatement made to Kelly, sloppiness in reporting his information in the police report, or worse by Kalfas?