Why Was Firefighter Wayne Frank Not Interviewed during the Investigation of Mark’s Death?

It is difficult to understand why the lead NYSP investigator Edward Kalfas did not interview one of the three firefighters on the scene of my brother Mark’s truck fire, since all three appeared on the scene within a few minutes of each other and were involved in extinguishing the flames on Mark.  By contrast, one of the other two firefighters was interviewed the night of the fire and the other ten days later, as indicated by their witness statements .

In a phone conversation with me in March 2004, a cousin who lived in Florida mentioned a number of things he had been told about Mark’s truck fire by a firefighter who had been on the scene.  However, my cousin Dennis Pavlock, who had initially been reluctant to reveal the information he had learned, would not tell me the name of the firefighter (see post of October 31, 2020).  At that time, while the investigation was ongoing, I did not know how many firefighters had been on the scene.

In September 2004, a copy of the police report, which I obtained through a FOIL request, included the witness statements of firefighters Gary Wind and Mark Ward.  It was only by chance that the third firefighter’s presence on the scene was made known to me.  At a high school reunion event in 2005, I happened to have a conversation with a former classmate named Wayne Frank during which he revealed that he had been on the scene of Mark’s truck fire as a firefighter.

Although initially reluctant to say anything about it, he soon revealed considerable information about what he had observed on the scene.  He offered several details about the way the truck went down the driveway and its location in the field, among other things, which suggested to him that Mark’s truck fire was no accident.  He ended by saying, “The police should have looked for Mark’s nine-iron.”

After I reported to Buffalo criminal attorney Michael Kelly Wayne’s statements about the scene of the truck fire and his suggestive reference to Mark’s nine-iron, Kelly had a face-to-face conversation with him.  Wayne not only confirmed my report of the statements he had made to me but, even more important, clarified what he had meant by his reference to the nine-iron.  As discussed in previous posts (see March 29, 2022, and August 31, 2023), Wayne saw a wound on Mark’s forehead that looked as if he had been struck by a nine-iron.

Significantly, Wayne’s observation about the wound on Mark’s forehead confirmed important information that my brother’s attending physician at the Erie County Medical Center burn unit had told me earlier in 2005: he had observed deep soft-tissue swelling on Mark’s forehead, along with further soft-tissue, confirmed by a CT scan, that suggested a blow to his forehead (see esp. posts of September 22, 2010; September 24, 2016; and August 9, 2022).  The doctor also confirmed that there was soft-tissue swelling to the left side of Mark’s face.

As also mentioned in earlier posts, when this information was relayed to then NYSP senior investigator John Wolfe, he sarcastically dismissed Wayne’s comment about Mark’s nine-iron (see post of August 31, 2023).  In a number of conversations with Atty. Kelly and with me, Wolfe continued to insist that there was no evidence of a wound to Mark’s forehead and to deny that my brother was likely attacked the night of his truck fire.

Would the NYSP have been able to ignore the existence of the wound on Mark’s forehead during the investigation if they had in fact interviewed firefighter Wayne Frank during the investigation?  It is difficult to understand why Inv. Kalfas did not speak with Wayne Frank shortly after the fire, as he did with the other two firefighters.

Although I did not learn about Wayne Frank’s presence on the scene of my brother’s truck fire until July 2005, I had in fact sent a letter in March 2004 to then Cattaraugus County District Attorney Edward Sharkey in which I informed him about the conversation my cousin Dennis Pavlock had with a firefighter who had been on the scene of my brother’s truck fire.  I provided Dennis’s phone number so that the investigating authorities could contact him and get the name of that firefighter.  However, when I called Dennis after the investigation was over, he told me that he had never been contacted by the District Attorney’s office or the New York State Police investigator.

Why didn’t the District Attorney direct the lead NYSP investigator to contact Dennis to learn the identity of the firefighter who seemed to have additional information from what was reported in the witness statements of the other two firefighters?

Unfortunately, in May 2004 near the end of the investigation, D. A. Sharkey displayed a rude and arrogant attitude in a telephone conversation with Atty. Tony Tanke.  He insisted that there was no evidence of foul play and that Mark’s death was a suicide or an accident, though he believed it was a suicide.  Did D. A. Sharkey have any real interest in, or knowledge of, the facts of Mark’s case?  In the absence of any evidence of suicide, Sharkey ultimately classified Mark’s death as an accident.

The NYSP Investigators’ Lack of Interest in the 911 Call Reporting Mark’s Truck Fire

Previous posts have discussed problematic aspects of the NYSP regarding the 911 call made by my brother Mark’s wife Susan, to report Mark’s truck fire around 11 pm on September 23, 2003 in the field across from their house in Great Valley, NY.  The NYSP Trooper’s statement in the police report that he arrived on the scene in response to “a report of a male subject possibly attempting to burn himself in his vehicle” is concerning since his reference to a possible suicide was made within minutes of the truck fire, and it is unclear if his statement is connected to that 911 call (see post of July 1, 2014).

More problematically, the lead NYSP investigator of Mark’s death does not even mention the 911 call in his narrative in the police report and in an interview with a Buffalo attorney in 2005 stated that he had heard the 911 call but couldn’t remember it.  The NYSP senior investigator at the time then agreed to review the 911 call but soon changed his mind (see post of September 29, 2021).  After I reported the concerns of an official who had heard the 911 call, the NYSP investigator directed by an NYSP Captain to interview the official ignored his concerns and reported only that this official “could not offer any other specific memories other than previously provided or any evidence to prove foul play” (see post of December 19, 2024).

This post concerns a problematic response by an additional NYPS official about reviewing the 911 call.  In a telephone conversation in August 2014, Capt. Steven Nigrelli responded to my concern that the 911 call had not been reviewed by minimizing its importance.  His reply that “911 calls are very different” is doubtless true.  But that fact does not preclude the possibility that valuable information can be obtained from 911 calls, helping, for instance, to build a timeline of events.  Statements made in a 911 call can then be checked against later recollections or remarks made by the caller.  Investigators can then add to or modify a timeline of events or other evidence they may find relevant to a case.

Specific information might have come up in Susan’s 911 call in relation to her witness statement.  According to an official who heard the 911 tape, Susan took a considerable amount of time in her 911 call before she actually stated that Mark was on fire in the field. Did she include any additional helpful information or observations not in her witness statement taken a little over half an hour later?  Did she provide more specific details about seeing the truck on fire and about events just prior to that?  Did she say anything that might clarify her witness statement, specifically about hearing a noise in the garage that she thought was from the cats or about being on the phone for about half an hour before the fire?  Did she mention the gas can which, according to her witness statement, she realized after the fire that Mark had taken from the garage (on the problem of how Susan determined that Mark had taken the gas can, see post of October 30, 2018)?

The answers to one or more of these questions — which might be addressed in some fashion in Susan’s 911 call — may have given the investigation a different and more productive trajectory.

The obvious lack of interest in the 911 call that set in motion the investigation of my brother Mark’s death from horrific burns over 90% of his body is just one of many failures by the NYSP investigation to uncover what really happened the night of that suspicious truck fire.