More on What a Neighbor of Mark’s Said about the Night of the Truck Fire

Two previous posts (April 20, 2011, and August 31, 2021) discuss information reported to me about a ruckus on my brother Mark’s property immediately before his truck went into the field across from his house and burst into flames and the failure to follow up in 2010 by an investigator for the Cattaraugus County District Attorney, who was also the NYSP Senior Investigator at the time of Mark’s death.  This post expands on the two earlier ones.

As the two previous posts observe, the report of a ruckus on Mark’s property was brought to my attention by a chance encounter with the secretary of the local Catholic church in late September 2009.  The secretary, Judy Bess, referred to a conversation that she had with a member of the congregation named Gene Woodworth, who was a neighbor of my brother.  According to the secretary, Woodworth said the following: (a) he happened to be outdoors and heard a ruckus going on outside Mark's house; (b) he observed the truck go down the driveway and saw Mark; and (c) he then rushed over to the scene and even helped bat the flames out on Mark.

As the earlier posts also discuss, when I telephoned him the following day, Woodworth gave me a very different account of what he had heard and done.  Woodworth said that he had seen lights flashing and found out what was happening from another neighbor, Dan Smith, who was leaving as he arrived.  Stating that he never saw Mark at all, Woodworth added that he thought "something [had] happened on the property" and surmised that Mark had backed the truck all the way across the road.  The following day I reported to Judy Bess these discrepancies with her summary of the conversation she had with Woodworth.  Judy, however, insisted that she had reported Woodworth’s statements accurately and added that he had referred specifically to “screaming” coming from Mark’s property.

As the earlier posts also indicate, when I met with Cattaraugus County D. A. Lori Rieman and John Ensell in May 2010, I mentioned Judy Bess’s summary of what Gene Woodworth had told her, including the issue of a ruckus on Mark’s property right before the truck fire.  Ensell immediately insisted that it was not true.  I also explained how Woodworth’s account to me differed radically from what Judy said he had told her.  Although D. A. Rieman instructed Ensell to contact Judy Bess about her conversation with Woodworth, Ensell replied to me by e-mail in December 2010 that he could not find a phone number for Judy.  He also stated that he had interviewed Woodworth, who had little to say about the night of Mark’s truck fire, only that he “saw yellow off in the distance, walked about half way down, and turned around and came back” and that “anything said after that would have been purely speculation.”

Judy Bess apparently was never interviewed, and the issue seems to have been dropped by both Ensell and D. A. Rieman.  In my own conversation with Woodworth, I asked if he had been interviewed by the NYSP during the investigation into Mark’s death.  Woodworth replied that he had not been interviewed.  Given that he lived just down the road from my brother’s house and knew Mark, it seems very odd that the NYSP investigators overlooked Woodworth as a potential source of information.

A few years after my meeting with Rieman and Ensell, another individual mentioned a conversation with Woodworth about the night of Mark’s truck fire.  The details differ from Woodworth’s statements to me and from Ensell’s summary of his interview with Woodworth as well as from what Judy Bess reported to me.  According to that individual, Woodworth stated that his wife had seen the flames from their house and that he had gone up the road to the scene.  As that individual also reported, Woodworth did not want to talk any further about the night of Mark’s truck fire but did say that he thought it likely that Mark had been murdered.

Did the NYSP Investigators Fully Look into the Problem of the Gas Can?

 

Previous posts have discussed the problem of the gas can found on the floor of the passenger’s side of my brother Mark’s pickup truck the night of his truck fire (see esp. July 22, 2012, and October 30, 2018).  As mentioned in the earlier posts, the location of the gas can that night is suspicious because Mark never put gas cans in the cab of his truck, but always secured them in the back of the truck.  This post discusses how thoroughly (or not) the NYSP investigators looked into the gas can itself from a scientific perspective as well as from common experience.

It is well known that gas cans easily explode, if left open and their vapors exposed to a flame or some other source of ignition.  The Fire Investigator’s report specifies that there was no explosion, and the lead investigator Edward Kalfas also told me that there was no explosion.  However, Mark’s neighbor and EMT Cheryl Simcox informed me that she heard an explosion and saw the truck on fire in the field across from Mark’s house; “toned out” about the fire, she rushed to the scene.  Cheryl stated that her husband also heard the explosion.

Surprised when I told her that there was no reference to an explosion in her witness statement in the police report, Cheryl said that she was quite sure she had mentioned it to Inv. Kalfas when he took her statement.  In addition, Mark’s and my half-sister Carol McKenna told me in passing that Mark’s wife Susan had also mentioned hearing an explosion, though Susan does not refer to an explosion in her own witness statement.

Furthermore, Cheryl Simcox said that the explosion had shaken their trailer.  Given such a strong recollection of that event, some form of explosion seems certain.  When Dr. Edward Piotrowski, Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit, asked me if there had been an explosion, I replied that according to Inv. Kalfas there had not been an explosion.  The doctor, however, expressed skepticism about Kalfas’s denial of an explosion since Kalfas had not been on the scene at the time.

In a conversation with an experienced forensic toxicologist, I referred to Cheryl Simcox’s mention of an explosion and Dr. Piotrowski’s interest in knowing if there had been an explosion.  The forensic toxicologist explained that the issue of an explosion is part of a larger picture and that it is important to know if the gas can was open.  I mentioned that firefighter Wayne Frank had told me that it was probably not possible to know the answer because the gas can was so badly burned.  The forensic toxicologist, however, stated that forensic experts would in fact be able to tell if the can was open or not when it burned.

In an entry in his narrative the police report for 09/24/03, Inv. Kalfas lists among five items of evidence "the melted remains of a red plastic gas can -to Western Regional Crime Lab."  Nothing further is stated about the condition of the gas can.  How much of it was left?  Was the cap of the can totally destroyed in the fire?

In an entry for 11/04/03, Kalfas states the following: “Member received lab results from the Western Regional Crime Lab regarding the melted gas can and burnt clothing from the victim.  Items tested positive for gasoline.”  Kalfas states nothing more about the lab results from the Western Regional Crime Lab.  One assumes that the Western Regional Crime Lab was more detailed, but the police report does not include the report from that Crime Lab.  As far as the gas can goes, the information reported by Kalfas suggests that the NYSP investigators (Kalfas and his immediate superior Sr. Inv. John Ensell) were interested only in determining if there had actually been gasoline in it at the time of the fire.

Was there no concern to find out from forensic experts at the Western Regional Crime Lab if the can was open or not when it burned?  Did it cause the explosion heard and felt by Cheryl Simcox?  Part of the “larger picture” referred to by the forensic toxicologist whom I consulted would presumably concern the manner in which the gasoline would have spread through the cab of the truck.  Would the Fire Investigator’s statement that the “heavy damage to the driver’s side seat and floor area” and the “lesser damage” to the passenger’s side be consistent with a finding that the gas can had been open but otherwise undisturbed?

If not, how would one explain the saturation of the driver’s side seat and floor with gasoline?  Mark certainly had no reason to use the gas can late that night: he had not run out of gas as the tank was determined to be three-quarters full.

Why Were No Photographs Taken of Mark on the Scene?

In mid-2005, I informed Atty. Michael Kelly that Mark’s attending physician had asked me if pictures of Mark had been taken on the scene, as it was not clear from the autopsy report or the police report (which I had sent the doctor) if they were taken.  When Kelly met in September 2005 with NYSP Sr. Inv. John Wolfe and Inv. Edward Kalfas, the lead investigator in my brother Mark’s death, Kelly was allowed to view the police photographs of the scene and was informed by Inv. Kalfas that no photographs of Mark had been taken on the scene.

In his very brief narrative in the police report, the first NYSP officer on the scene, Trooper David Chandler, does not record if he examined Mark before he was taken away by airlift to the burn unit of the Erie County Medical Center.  Trooper Chandler apparently was on the scene before Mark was placed in the ambulance, since he records that his interview of Mark’s wife Susan began at 11:30 p.m. on September 23, 2003.

The first firefighter on the scene, Gary Wind, says in his witness statement that he was dispatched to the fire at about 10:59 p.m.  The first emergency worker on the scene, EMT (and neighbor) Cheryl Simcox, says in her witness statement that shortly after her arrival on the scene a couple of minutes after being toned out around 10:55 p.m., firefighters arrived and then a State Trooper.  Assuming that he was in fact present before Mark was taken away, as it appears he was, why didn’t Trooper Chandler take photographs of Mark to document the specific nature of his injuries?

It has without question been standard procedure for police to photograph on the scene victims of all types of injuries.  As one instructor of forensic photography for police officers put it, “Since patrol officers are generally involved on the front end, the photographs [they] take may be the best representation of an injury's severity” (see www.policemag.com/patrol/article/13548954/how-to-photograph-injuries). That, however, did not happen in Mark’s case.

Surprisingly, Trooper Chandler notes in his entry in the police report that he was responding to a report of a male "possibly attempting to burn himself in his vehicle."  By contrast, firefighter Gary Wind mentions in his witness statement that he responded to “possible entrapment in vehicle.”  The second firefighter on the scene, Mark Ward, similarly says in his witness statement that a little before 11 p.m. his “pacer went off indicating a truck fire and possible entrapment at the Pavlock residence.”  EMT Cheryl Simcox in a later conversation with me also stated that she was toned out for a “possible entrapment."

Where did Trooper Chandler get the idea that Mark was "possibly attempting to burn himself in his vehicle"?  How did the notion of a possible suicide materialize on the very night of Mark’s truck fire?  Trooper Chandler’s narrative is dated the very next day (Sept. 24, 2003); so, the events would have been very fresh in his mind.  Was there a second 911 call?  None is mentioned in the police report.

What specifically was in Susan’s 911 call?  Sr. Inv. Wolfe initially told Atty. Kelly in September 2005 that he would retrieve the tape but then changed his mind and informed Kelly in mid-November that he would get the 911 tape as well as other things he requested only if the medical records indicated foul play (see post of August 31, 2023).  When I later requested a transcript and audio of that 911 call, the NYSP replied that no such tape could be located (see post of September 22, 2011).

Was a rush to judgment about suicide made even before the investigation into Mark’s death really got started?  It would appear that way.  Is that, then, why no photographs were taken on the scene?  Because they took no photographs of Mark’s horrific injuries on the scene, the NYSP failed to document the wounds to Mark’s forehead observed and orally confirmed by two firefighters on the scene (Wayne Frank and Gary Wind), which Mark’s attending physician at the burn unit told me that he observed as soft-tissue swelling and confirmed through a CT scan.

From a poor investigation in 2003 to a resistance to reconsider their insistence on suicide or accident in 2005, the NYSP’s behavior was far worse than unprofessional.