The Problem of the NYSP Interviews of Ofc. Mark Marowski

After my brother Mark died from third-degree burns over ninety percent of his body in a very suspicious truck fire in a field across from his house in rural Great Valley, NY, on September 23, 2003, Edward Kalfas, the lead NYSP investigator, quickly focused on an unwarranted theory of suicide.  Yet he also informed me in a phone conversation that the day before the fire Mark had got into an altercation with an off-duty policeman at a club in Salamanca and that, after the officer called in to the police, Mark was arrested for DWI.  However, Inv. Kalfas did not mention the name of the off-duty police officer.

Not long afterward, however, I learned that Mark Marowski was the off-duty policeman, that the argument had been personal, and that Marowski himself had been drinking heavily at the club.  When I met with Inv. Kalfas in person in early November 2003 and asked about the argument between my brother and this police officer, Kalfas denied that he had told me about that altercation and abruptly ended the interview, adding that he would no longer speak to me.

In the weeks and months following my brother’s death, several individuals in the Salamanca area mentioned this incident to me, with numerous comments about Marowski’s behavior unsuited to a police officer.  The argument at the Holy Cross Club was a matter of concern because of the timing of it, the very day before Mark’s suspicious truck fire, and because of reported previous arguments between my brother and Marowski at that club (see esp. post of October 17, 2014).  In addition, I was concerned about a report that when Marowski came back into the Holy Cross Club after going out to have the Salamanca police stop my brother on his way home, he was overheard saying on his cell phone, “It’s all taken care of.”

With information I had at the time, I wrote a letter to then Cattaraugus County District Attorney Edward Sharkey in March 2004 in which I informed him about a number of issues, including the reports about Ofc. Marowski’s own heavy drinking the day of the altercation with my brother at the Holy Cross Club.  D.A. Sharkey never responded to my letter.

D.A. Sharkey informed Atty. Tony Tanke in May 2004 that he would not release any documents from his office to me and that I would have to make a FOIL request to the NYSP for the police report.  I did so and obtained a redacted copy of the police report in September 2004.  Although the report refers to my brother allegedly behaving “unusually” at the club, there is no mention of the altercation between my brother and Ofc. Marowski.

In early October 2005, in a phone conversation with NYSP Sr. Inv. John Wolfe, I brought up my concern that the argument between my brother and Ofc. Marowski the day before the truck fire was not pursued, as Inv. Kalfas admitted to Atty. Michael Kelly that he had not even asked members of the Holy Cross Club about the argument.  Sr. Inv. Wolfe did not respond.

In February 2006, in a phone conversation with NYSP Capt. George Brown, I expressed my concern about the failure of the investigators to pursue the argument between my brother and Ofc. Marowski.   Capt. Brown simply claimed, with no explanation, that it was irrelevant to Mark's death.

In April 2007, in a phone conversation with NYSP Lt. Allen, I again brought up the failure of Inv. Kalfas to pursue the argument between my brother and Ofc. Marowski the day before the fire.  Lt. Allen did not respond.

The lack of response by both D.A. Sharkey and the NYSP officials to my concerns about the altercation between my brother and Ofc. Marowski the very day before Mark’s truck fire, as well as the absence of any mention of that altercation in the police report, suggested that Marowski was being protected.  In an interview in May 2010 with current Cattaraugus County D.A. Lori Rieman, John Ensell, Inv. Kalfas’s superior in the investigation of Mark’s death, was also present.

When I raised the issue of the argument at the Holy Cross Club and the failure to pursue that issue during the investigation, Ensell stated that Marowski had been interviewed.  However, he said nothing specific about that interview.  In addition, Ensell’s insistence that the members present during the altercation said it hadn't been much of an argument contradicted the statement by Inv. Kalfas to Atty. Michael Kelly in September 2005 that he had not interviewed Holy Cross Club members about the altercation.

In late 2014, I brought up several issues of concern about the investigation of Mark’s death, including the argument at the Holy Cross Club, to NYSP Capt. Steven Nigrelli.  Capt. Nigrelli informed me that he would have an NYSP investigator follow up on my concerns and in January 2015 provided me with a summary of the results (see post of January 16, 2015).  Although most of the summaries of the items list the dates when the interviews were conducted, there is no date for the summary concerning Marowski. There is also no indication of who actually interviewed Marowski.

However, a nephew of mine and my brother’s, who was interviewed at that time about what he observed at Mark’s house a couple of months before the truck fire, informed me that he was contacted by Inv. Christopher Iwanko.  Inv. Iwanko had a role in the investigation of my brother’s death, since he is listed in the police report as present at Mark’s autopsy, “taking photographs, fingerprints and a blood kit from [the] victim.”  Iwanko also responded to a phone call by an independent criminologist, who inquired about the photos of the scene of the truck fire.  The criminologist was surprised when Iwanko said that he remembered the case but oddly hesitated a considerable time before giving his name (requested in case the criminologist needed to call again for clarification or further information).

The summary of the interview of Marowski in late 2014 or early 2015 provided by Capt. Nigrelli is very brief, mentioning that Marowski was asked about two issues: (1) “his knowledge of the incident surrounding Mark's death” and (2) his relationship with my brother and his wife.  It suggests that Marowski was not really pressed about either issue. On the first issue, the summary states only: “with no new information developed.”

On the second issue, the summary reports two responses by Marowski that are uninformative.  His apparently neutral statement that he “knew both Mark and Susan since they all grew up in the area” seems particularly hypocritical and deceptive in light of a report about his response at the Holy Cross Club the day after Mark’s truck fire.  According to a bartender at the club, as my brother lay dying in the burn unit and calls were coming in at the club with updates on his condition, Marowski actually bragged about his role in Mark’s arrest for DWI.  Could the investigator really have been unaware of Marowski’s own DWI arrest (see post of February 17, 2015), for which he was reportedly forced to retire?

The summary of the interview of Marowski also states that he “denied any romantic relationship with Susan Pavlock.”  Since I had e-mailed to Capt. Nigrelli a copy of the anonymous letter sent to me that alleges an affair between Marowski and my brother's wife (see post of August 11, 2014: “Firstly, Sue was having an affair with Mark Marowski.  She was observed riding a 4-wheeler with him on numerous occasions”), the letter was presumably passed on to the investigator.

Apparently, no effort was made in advance of that interview to determine if any acquaintances or neighbors in Great Valley had observed the off-road recreation mentioned in the anonymous letter.  Was the NYSP investigator unaware of the lawsuit against Marowski for defrauding the Holy Cross Club of funds that were to be used to benefit its members (see post of October 17, 2014)?  Could he also have been unaware of the circumstances of Marowski’s prior arrest for speeding and DWI, after he tried to evade the Salamanca police officers in pursuit of him (again, see post of February 17, 2015)?  Did the investigator really assume that Marowski was an honest and straightforward person?

Given Marowski’s documented unprofessional and unethical conduct, he should have been fully scrutinized for possible involvement in my brother Mark’s death.  But judging by the suppression from the police report of Marowski’s argument with my brother the day before the truck fire and what the NYSP revealed to me about the two interviews of Marowski, the opposite is what really happened.  A police officer was being protected.

A former Salamanca police officer, who also has had a successful career in another state, knew Marowski and had a negative opinion of him (see post of Sept. 13, 2015).  I end by quoting the assessment of the investigation by this police officer: “I read through all the reports and it doesn't appear that much of an investigation was done because, I think, they thought no one would give a damn anyway.  Anything that was done subsequent to the original shoddy investigation was only an effort to justify what had not been done in the first place.”

Problems with What the NYSP Senior Investigator Agreed to Do in Fall of 2005

New information about my brother Mark’s condition at the time of his suspicious truck fire and issues that did not appear to be pursued (or not fully pursued) during the investigation in fall of 2003 appeared to offer hope that the investigation might be re-opened.  At my request, in September 2005 in his interview with NYSP Sr. Inv. John Wolfe and Inv. Edward Kalfas, Atty. Michael Kelly raised pertinent questions about the investigation into Mark’s truck fire and his death from third-degree burns over ninety percent of his body.  This post considers five important issues that Sr. Inv. Wolfe agreed to investigate following this meeting with Atty. Kelly in 2005 but then failed to pursue.

(1) It was unclear why Trooper David Chandler, the first NYSP official on the scene of Mark’s truck fire, refers in his narrative in the police report to responding for a "male subject possibly attempting to burn himself in his vehicle."  Atty. Kelly, therefore, asked if Kalfas, who had been the lead investigator, had reviewed the 911 call made by Mark’s wife Susan.  When Kalfas told Kelly that he had got the 911 tape but couldn’t remember what it said specifically, Wolfe said that he would call to retrieve the 911 tape.

However, Wolfe changed his mind and informed Kelly in mid-November that he would get the 911 tape and other things we requested only if the medical records indicated foul play.  It would certainly have required little effort on his part to get the tape of the 911 call, which I later learned was problematic, according to an official who had heard it shortly after Mark’s truck fire (see post of July 7, 2022).

(2) In early 2005, Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit informed me about deep soft-tissue damage to my brother’s forehead and to the left side of his face, and in mid-2005 Kelly learned from firefighter Wayne Frank about a wound to Mark’s forehead that looked as if he had been struck by a nine-iron.  At the meeting in September 2005, Kelly asked Kalfas why there is no mention of those head injuries in the police report.  In addition, according to Frank, firefighter Gary Wind (who later confirmed this to me) also noticed the small gash on Mark's forehead.  Kelly therefore asked if NYSP Trooper Chandler had mentioned anything to Kalfas about Mark's condition.  When Kalfas apparently had nothing to say, Wolfe told Kelly that he would call in Trooper Chandler to ask about the head wound and about relevant comments made by individuals on the scene.

However, in a phone call in early October, without providing any explanation, Wolfe insisted to me that there was no evidence of wounds to Mark’s head.  Wolfe’s phone conversation with Kelly in mid-November 2005 (mentioned above) suggests that he had probably not interviewed Trooper Chandler.  If the Trooper actually had nothing to report, Wolfe should have told that to Kelly.

(3) Since Dr. Edward Piotrowski, Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit at Erie County Medical Center, had informed me about the deep soft-tissue swelling and stated that Mark had been doused with a flammable liquid (see post of March 31, 2018), Kelly asked why Kalfas failed to interview the doctor.  Although Dr. Piotrowski had told me that no one from the investigating authorities ever spoke with him, Kalfas told Kelly that he had called to speak with the attending physician, but he had nothing to say.  Wolfe then informed Kelly that he would contact the doctor himself.

In a phone conversation with me in mid-October 2005, Wolfe informed me that he used the new phone number for Dr. Piotrowski (given to me by his former secretaries at ECMC and SUNY Buffalo Medical School), but the doctor said his name was Piotrowski but he had never worked at ECMC.  In a phone conversation in April 2007, NYSP Lt. Allen stated that Capt. Brown had had Sr. Inv. Wolfe track down Dr. Piotrowski in December 2005 and that the doctor said he could not remember the case and could not say anything without having the medical records in front of him.  Lt. Allen acknowledged that Dr. Piotrowski did not get back to them and they did not pursue the matter further.

Wolfe did not show good faith when he failed to interview Dr. Piotrowski about Mark’s condition upon his arrival in the burn unit, in particular about the soft-tissue damage to his forehead and the left side of his face.  In a phone conversation with me in September 2005 shortly after Kelly’s meeting with Wolfe and Kalfas, Wolfe was emphatic that they needed to see the medical records as well as to speak with Dr. Piotrowski.  Atty. Kelly, moreover, informed me that he had told the NYSP to get a subpoena if the doctor refused to speak to them.

(4) In the meeting in September 2005, as reported by Kelly, Wolfe agreed that the issue of Mark’s blood alcohol level needed to be clarified. Kelly indicated that given Dr. Piotrowski’s statement to me that Mark’s corpse had to be the source of the blood (serum) alcohol test (the results of which are recorded in the autopsy report), they would need to find out what the emergency room might have sent to the burn unit.  In that meeting, Wolfe also instructed Kalfas to ask Susan Pavlock to sign a release for the medical records.  It is unclear what ensued, but when I later asked Wolfe if he had received the medical records, he said that they were getting them by a subpoena (on Wolfe’s remarks about the medical records, see post of March 31, 2020).

Wolfe apparently did not follow through on the blood alcohol issue when he obtained the medical records.  When I spoke with NYSP Capt. George Brown in January 2006, he insisted that the technician involved in the testing would have been an experienced professional and the doctor reading the results would have known how to interpret them.  However, as I learned much later from an experienced forensic toxicologist in 2012 (see post of April 29, 2023), my brother would have been in a coma if he had a blood alcohol level of over .40 at the time of the truck fire, as calculated from the post-mortem serum level in the autopsy report.

(5) In the meeting in September 2005, Kelly asked why Kalfas failed to pursue the claim to me by my brother’s daughter Christie that Mark had committed suicide because he was depressed over our mother's death (nearly three years earlier) and that he had left her a suicide letter but that she was telling only me as well as her mother and brother in order to protect the insurance money (see post of November 23, 2013).  Kalfas replied that Christie had denied knowing anything about a suicide note and that he did not know what to do about it.  In a phone conversation with Wolfe shortly after that meeting, I brought up my concern about Christie's claim of a suicide letter, which I did not believe, and her reference to protecting the insurance money.  Wolfe then stated that he wanted to speak with Christie but that she had not returned his call.

Wolfe apparently did not pursue Christie’s statement to me about a suicide letter and protection of insurance money.  Atty. Kelly, however, insisted to me that this issue should have been investigated and that Christie should have been subpoenaed if she refused to speak with Wolfe.

If the NYSP had actually pursued these five issues, as Sr. Inv. Wolfe initially agreed to do, the investigation of my brother’s horrific death would presumably have been re-opened, as Atty. Kelly expected it to be.