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.