Burned

Home > Other > Burned > Page 27
Burned Page 27

by Edward Humes


  Q: Meaning they were probably connected up to something?

  A: Yes.

  [skipping several questions]

  Q: Was there something more about this cord that was suspicious that you have already described?

  A: Yes.

  Q: What?

  A: As I began to follow it back to the outlet, I noticed that part of the electric cord had been wrapped with some type of material or material had been draped over it and then containers placed on it. This material had burned or melted onto the wire itself and appeared to be some type of rubber-backed drapery material.

  Q: What’s so unusual about something like this around the wire?

  A: Well, the problem with that is that the wire itself, when electricity goes through it, generates heat. When you insulate that wire, you are asking that heat to build up and possibly start a fire.

  Q: What was there about the insulation of this cord, if anything, that drew your attention?

  A: As I followed this back, I then ran into an area which, when I removed the clothes, there was what appeared to be a probably 12-, maybe 14-inch lavender or possibly purple or blue bottom of a plastic clothes basket which was melted onto the carpet. Upon removing that, I found a complete section of the wire which had the insulation intact, but there was a portion of the wire where the insulation had been cut away from the wire itself and exposed the bare wires.

  Q: What’s so unusual about that?

  A: Well, going back to my training and the things I had learned, modification of an appliance, and this cord would be a modification, is somewhat of a strong indicator that an arson may have—

  Q: You used the word “appliance.” Are you including a cord within the definition of appliance?

  A: Yes, I am.

  Q. So that—did this cord look like it had been—was the subject of wear that the insulation was gone?

  A: No, sir. It actually had been cut and cut away. . . . The only reason this particular insulation was found was that this plastic basket, which had clothes in it, had protected that portion of the cord from the fire. The cord on either side of the basket had the insulation either melted or burned off. This section was not damaged, and that was the only reason I found it.

  [skipping questions]

  A: This is part of the electrical wire that we seized from the living room area along the north wall. . . . It had this rubber backed drapery material which was melted around part of the bare cord melted around it, and this is the part that ran from the wall towards the basket.

  Q: So that this wire was not the one that had the cuts on it?

  A: No, sir.

  [Skipping questions. Ablott is asked to explain the “octopus” section of the extension cord where other cords are plugged into it.]

  A: This cord had part of the rubber insulation cut away from it, and had been done in such a manner that the insulation had been removed from the wire itself. . . . There is material wrapped around the wire, prior to the cut, and this material is burned and melted on to the wire.

  [skipping ahead]

  Q: This part right here, isn’t that what you are talking about where there is some copper shining through the insulation?

  A: Yes, it is, sir.

  Q: Now, there is no burning there, is there, or melting of the insulation at that particular spot?

  A: No, there’s not.

  Q: And there’s no sign of carpet having been melted into it at that particular spot, is there, where this particular wire is bared?

  A: No, sir.

  Q: There is no other wire touching that particular wire at that point, is there, to cause a short or arcing?

  A: No, sir.

  Q: There is no drapery material wound around it, or caught up in it at that particular point, is there?

  A: No, sir.

  Q: And this point where this wire is bared, is that what was underneath some kind of a clothes hamper, or something, in your opinion when you found it?

  A: It was underneath a round base of like a clothes basket, or a trash basket–type thing. It’s round plastic.

  Q: But it was underneath some item?

  A: Right. And that was melted onto the carpet.

  Q: Yeah, but it was not melted onto the wire here, was it?

  A: No, sir.

  At a preliminary hearing before the trial, Ablott was even more clear that the cuts were not wrapped in any drapery material:

  A: The wiring was exposed due to the fact that the rubber coated insulation had been cut away from the wire itself, exposing the metal multi-strand cord or wire.

  Q: With regard to that wire, the exposed area of wire, what, if any, contact did that have with this material?

  A: It was actually past that area which had been wrapped in the cord by a few inches.

  The confusion about the cuts and the drapery appears to stem from an ambiguous statement Ablott made on page 2953 of the transcript, in which he explains why he seized the wires.

  A: The electrical wire which ran from the outlet on the west wall and ran along the north wall which had been either wrapped or folded into the drapery material which had containers placed on top of it and then continued under the laundry basket, and I am talking a small laundry basket which was either purple or blue, and then ended, which also had the octopus on it. That was the wire I did seize because of the cuts in the insulation and the drapery material which had been wrapped around it.

  Q: Now, at that point, by taking that material into custody, was that synonymous with saying that at least from your standpoint that this explained that area of origin as the cause of the fire?

  A: Yes. It appeared to be the obvious thing that started the fire. . . . That the insulation had been stripped away to cause a direct short and then the circuit was purposely overloaded to heat up the wire, cause it to short and start the fire.

  His subsequent testimony made clear that what he was saying was that he seized the wire because one part of it had cuts in the insulation—a deliberate and suspicious “modification” of the wire, in his opinion—and that other parts of the wire had been wrapped in material to cause the wire to overheat. But this quote was taken out of context and, because of its phrasing, used to suggest that the cuts in the wiring were covered over with drapery material. Nordskog relies on this interpretation in his report filed in the habeas proceeding:

  Det. Ron Ablott, the most experienced and educated investigator at the scene, testified that the wire “had been either wrapped or folded into the drapery material which had containers placed on top of it . . . that was the wire I did seize because of the cuts in the insulation and the drapery material which had been wrapped around it.” He testified later that it was “electrical sabotage.” He was the first person to recognize the item for what it was, a crudely constructed attempt at an incendiary arrangement or device. Ablott has a unique perspective that no other investigator in this case has. He was a former homicide detective, and at the time of this fire he had been a bomb and arson investigator on over 1,000 cases. He was the person best equipped to recognize this item for what it was.

  Acknowledgments

  A work of nonfiction isn’t just about storytelling. It’s also an exercise in patience and generosity—not by the author, but by those who inhabit the story and are willing to share their knowledge, insights, and expertise. I’m not sure why they put up with inordinate numbers of questions in otherwise very busy lives, but a very large number of kind folks did just that, and their goodwill and willingness to share their stories made Burned possible.

  In particular I wish to thank:

  The staff and volunteers of the California Innocence Project, including Raquel Cohen, Alissa Bjerkhoel, Mike Semanchik, Alex Simpson, Audrey McGinn, Katherine Bonaguidi, and the project’s director, Justin Brooks; Ed Nordskog of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Arson/Explosives Detail; Lo
s Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Erika Jerez; Paul Bieber; Greg Gorbett; retired Deputy District Attorney Dinko Bozanich; and Jo Ann Parks, for allowing access without conditions; and Mary Ross, whose hospitality and help were invaluable and most appreciated.

  I also wish to thank my editor at Dutton, Stephen Morrow, for his support and good ear and, as always, the wonderful team at Writers House, A Literary Agency, where my incomparable agent and friend, Susan Ginsburg, and Stacy Testa have long done their best to keep me in line.

  ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

  Index

  The page numbers in this index refer to the printed version of this book. The link provided will take you to the beginning of that print page. You may need to scroll forward from that location to find the corresponding reference on your e-reader.

  Ablott, Ronald R. See also Incendiary device theory and television evidence

  Bell home fire investigation by, 43–48, 127–28, 137–41

  biographical information, 136–37

  closet barricade theory of, 46–47, 147–50, 159–60, 247–50, 256–57

  Cohen on evidence by, 129–30

  Gorbett’s testimony on work of, 240–50

  Hoback’s testimony on work of, 231

  Lynwood home fire investigated by, 113–15, 140

  methodology used by, 141–42

  NFPA 921 (National Fire Protection Association) and, 58–59, 199, 226

  prosecution in Parks case based on opinions of, 150–52

  retirement of, 176

  Smith’s testimony on work of, 233

  testimony of, at Parks 1992 trial, 154–63, 166, 180

  American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 194

  “Animal magnetism,” 218–19

  Armstrong, William, 144

  Arson. See also Burn patterns; Evidence; Fire science

  arrest of Parks for, 59–61

  crazed glass and, 53–54, 57, 199

  dogs for arson investigations, 213

  forensic science controversies about, 198–203

  initial investigation of Jo Ann and Ron Parks, 43–50

  Lime Street fire (1990) and, 55–57

  NFPA 921 (National Fire Protection Association) recommendations on, 57–59, 199, 226

  Oakland firestorm (1991) and, 51–55

  Arson/Explosives Detail (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department), 43–50

  Arson Review Committee report (Los Angeles County Fire Department, 2012), 73–74, 232–38

  Asphyxiation, 12

  Backdraft, 161–63

  “Bad mother” archetype, 75, 202–3

  Banks, Brian, 135

  Barilla, Raquel. See Cohen, Raquel

  Bell, James, 13

  Bell (city), early history of, 13–14

  Bell Police Department

  Bruce and, 20–24, 30, 46, 172, 255

  Cacheiro and, 18, 170–71

  Dodge’s allegation of arson to, 43, 44, 47–49, 137

  Espejo and, 27–31, 39

  Parks children’s deaths revealed to parents by, 35–42

  Talbott and, 137–41

  Bendectin, 192–93

  Beyler, Craig, 200

  Bieber, Paul, 214, 215, 217, 221–28, 270

  Bishop, Bob, 137

  Bite-mark evidence, 188–90

  Bjerkhoel, Alissa

  California Innocence Project job of, 70

  Long case and, 104–5

  Parks case and, 101, 103

  Rivera case and, 92–95, 104

  Black holes, 53–54

  Blind investigation process, 217–21, 270

  Bozanich, Dinko. See also Trial of Jo Ann Parks (1992)

  on flashover, 146

  on Parks’s character and credibility, 160–63

  on Parks trial, 153–54

  summation by, at Parks trial (1992), 150–52, 170

  Brady, John Leo, 98

  Brady materials, 98, 131

  Brooks, Justin

  California Innocence Project inception and, 130, 133–36

  on Parks case, 174, 179–80

  Brown, Jerry, 135, 205

  Bruce, Jeff, 20–24, 30, 46, 172, 255

  Bunch, Kristine, 200–203

  Burden of proof, 73

  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 198–200, 240, 246

  Burn patterns

  Ablott’s investigation of Parkses’ Bell home, 43–48, 127–28, 137–47

  Carman on burn-cell exercises, 198–200, 240

  forensic science controversies about, 157, 198–203 (See also Habeas hearing for Parks)

  heat and flame vector analysis of, 237–47

  investigation of Parkses’ Lynwood home fire, 113–15, 140

  pour patterns, defined, 55

  temperature and timing of, 11

  V-patterns, defined, 55–56

  Cacheiro, Pete, 18, 170–71

  California Innocence Project, 65–76. See also Cohen, Raquel; Habeas corpus petitions; Habeas hearing for Parks

  California Western School of Law, 65, 89, 135

  case load of, 65–67

  Cohen’s review of Parks case, 61, 67–77

  founding of, 130, 133–36

  funding of, 94, 266–67

  Long case and, 104–5

  nature of work, 68, 87–88, 100–101, 125–28

  Richards case and, 95–96, 189–90

  Rivera case, 89–95, 104

  Vargas case and, 95, 97

  XONR8 abbreviation of, 104

  California (state)

  “California 12,” 135

  death penalty in, 60, 163–65

  expert witnesses used in, 70

  governor’s pardoning in, 135, 205

  Three Strikes repeat offender law, 230

  volume of habeas corpus petitions submitted to, 125

  on withholding evidence, 98

  California Western School of Law, 65, 89, 135. See also California Innocence Project

  Canen, Lana, 185

  Canine alerts, 213

  Carbon monoxide, 10, 12

  Cardozo School of Law, 133

  Carman, Steve, 198–200, 240

  Carney, Sean, 223–27

  Center on Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University, 201

  Century Regional Detention Facility (Los Angeles County), 206–7

  Chanot, François, 219

  Chowchilla (women’s penitentiary), 87, 206

  Christian Scientists, 35–42, 49, 109, 116

  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church), 77, 79, 81, 83–84, 271

  Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, 229

  Closet barricade theory

  Ablott on, 46–47, 147–50, 159–60, 247–50, 256–57

  clothes hamper position and, 46, 149–51, 159, 160, 249, 256, 272

  door hinges and, 148, 248, 256

  events of fire and Ronnie Jr.’s death, 29–34, 72

  Cognitive bias, 213–28

  Ablott’s investigation and, 137–47

  Bieber on Parks case, 214, 215, 217, 221–28, 238

  blind investigations as solution to, 217–21, 270

  Cohen on, 137–41, 178–80

  defined, 138, 186

  investigative bias and, 213–17

  Nordskog on, 178–80, 217, 228, 237

  uncertainty and, 269–73

  Cohen, August, 87

  Cohen, Raquel, 87–106. See also California Innocence Project; Habeas hearing for Parks

  biographical information, 87–89, 94, 99–100, 103–4

  on cognitive bias, 137–41, 178–80
<
br />   Long case and, 104–5

  Parks case researched by, 61, 67–77, 96–106

  Richards case and, 95–96, 189–90

  Rivera case and, 89–95, 104

  Vargas case and, 95, 97

  Cohen, Ryan, 87, 100, 103–4, 265–66

  Cole, Simon, 184–85, 187, 193

  Conan Doyle, Sir Arthur, 188

  Convictions, error rate of, 131–32

  Corrigan, Carey, 79–80

  Corrigan, David, 79–80

  Cough medicine accusation

  Dodge on, 49, 105, 110, 124, 164–65, 168, 215

  Nordskog on, 177

  Cowans, Stephan, 185

  Crazed glass, 53–54, 57, 199

  CSI (TV show), 131

  Dactylography, 184

  Darigold ice cream packing plant, 28, 29, 39, 79, 111

  Daubert v. Merrell Down Pharmaceuticals, 192–93

  Daubert test, 192–94

  David (Jo Ann Parks’s first child), 48, 82–83, 118

  Death penalty (California), 60, 163–65

  Defense. See Trial of Jo Ann Parks (1992)

  Department of Justice (US), 139, 196

  Dissociative disorder, 84–85

  DNA testing

  credibility of, 188

  early use of, in criminal cases, 89, 132–33

  faulty eyewitness identification disputed by, 220–21

  Vargas case and, 95

  Dodge, Kathy

  accusation about arson by, 43, 44, 47–49, 137

  accusation about cough medicine by, 49, 105, 110, 124, 164–65, 168, 215

  argument between Jo Ann Parks and, 117–20, 123–24

  as potential trial witness, 163–65, 168–70

  Dogs, for arson investigations, 213

  Dotson, Gary, 132–33

  Double-blind investigation process, 219–21

  Eastern Kentucky University, 238, 248. See also Gorbett, Greg

  Error rate of convictions, 131–32

  Espejo, Frank, 27–31, 39

  Evidence. See also Burn patterns; Closet barricade theory; Firefighting; Fire science; Flashover; Incendiary device theory and television evidence

  bite-mark evidence, 188–90

 

‹ Prev