Beyond Prosecutorial Misconduct
The disregard for the truth in Bruce Mason's case appears to have started as soon as the fire was extinguished. From the first day of the investigation, through what seems like a trial out of Alice in Wonderland, scientific principles were cast aside while authorities manipulated evidence, presented testimony they knew to be false, and even fabricated a witness to win the conviction against Mason.
Any question of whether the unjust means led to a just result, was laid to rest by post-trial reconstruction testing of the fire scene. Conducted by the foremost experts in the field, the results were unequivocal. The arson fire scenario (origin, fire progression, etc) was scientifically impossible.
Any reasonable person would conclude that Mason was convicted of a crime that never happened. So why hasn't he been granted a new trial? The prosecution never disputed the validity of the scientific findings. Nor has it denied or presented any evidence which refutes the allegations that it suborned perjury, suppressed evidence, and fabricated the government's key witness. Legal precedent holds that such tactics violated Mason's Constitutional right to a fair trial. Yet, the courts refuse to grant Mason a new trial; conduct hearings so the evidence can be examined in a public forum; or order production of still suppressed evidence which would exonerate Mason.
If Mason's case is any indication, it appears that federal prosecutors in the United States can utilize the tactics described below without worry of court oversight or censure.
Summary of Mason's Prosecution
On October 7, 2002, Bruce Mason was convicted of arson and other charges in a federal bench trial in Binghamton, New York before Federal District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Mason was sentenced to fifteen years, and has been in prison since 2003.
Although government and insurance fire investigators found no evidence of arson at the fire scene (i.e., no accelerant, no incendiary device), the record shows they devised a scientifically impossible arson scenario, and when evidence was discovered which disproved it, they ignored it, destroyed it, suppressed it, or lied about it. When this wasn't enough to win the conviction, authorities fabricated a witness. According to post-trial statements by this witness, the fabrication was orchestrated by none other than the federal prosecutor.
Illogical Arson Fire Scenario
and Evidence Tampering
Even to a layman, the alleged arson scenario defies logic. The fire occurred in a 10,000 sq ft, single story manufacturing and warehouse facility. The fire was investigated by Broome County Fire Investigator Jeffrey Winchell and Insurance Investigator David Redsicker, who testified as experts for the prosecution. When examining the debris after the fire, the only combustible Winchell and Redsicker found on the concrete floor near the south wall of the building, was several stacks of old business papers and a paper-sized plastic remnant. They concluded that this was where the fire started. According to their testimony, the plastic remnant was the remains of a large plastic barrel, and the papers were inside of the barrel when the papers were squirted with lighter fluid and set on fire. The fire then burned from the papers, up through a nine foot high fire-resistant ceiling, to catch the building on fire.
How did this make sense to these fire experts? As anyone who's used a backyard grill can imagine, even the hottest fire inside the grill would allow them to hold their hand six feet above it without getting burned. In this case, the building had a fire-resistant ceiling, specially designed to prevent a fully developed room fire with sustained temperatures of over 1,400 degrees, from burning through from below. To put that temperature into perspective, there was an accident between two tractor-trailers inside of an Interstate 5 tunnel in California in the Fall of 2007. As reported on CNN, the collision resulted in a "raging inferno" with tempertures reaching 1400 degrees, which caused the cement in the tunnel to explode.
To understand what's meant by a "fully developed room fire", picture the entire volume of a room and all of its combustibles engulfed in flames, with direct flame impingement over the walls, floors, and ceiling. This is sometimes referred to as a post flash-over fire. If a fire such as this with temperatures hot enough to explode cement, couldn't burn through the building's fire-resistant ceiling, how could a fire in a barrel?
Perhaps most illogical of all, the papers survived the fire largely unburned. According to Redsicker's testimony and photographs, the papers that supposedly burned through the fire-resistant ceiling capable of withstanding 1400 degree temperatures, were themselves only charred on the edges, and could still be read after the fire.
Both Winchell and Redsicker conducted tests for accelerant and all tests were negative. However, these fire experts did not rule out accelerants. In fact, despite no supporting evidence, Winchell testified that accelerants were definitely used to start the fire.
Prosecution fire experts then testified that burn patterns on the south wall behind the business papers, corroborated their south floor arson origin. However, this conclusion is directly contradicted by known fire-science, as these burn patterns actually prove the exact opposite - that the fire did not start there, according to the NFPA 921 Fire and Explosions Guide, an NIST and ANSI standard. Accepted by virtually every fire organization, compliance with the NFPA 921 is mandated by the ATF and the U.S. Department of Justice.
According to this science-based guide, a fire's origin is usually the area which burned the longest and suffered the most damage; whereas the inverted "V" burn patterns on the south wall are evidence that the fire was short-lived in this area. Even more telling, inverted "V" burn patterns which reach the top of a wall are caused when there is no ceiling above the wall to restrict the flame plume. Accordingly, the existence of these burn patterns behind the business papers means that the fire didn't reach this area of the building until after the ceiling had already fallen from the fire and shortly before the fire was extinquished. Based on this evidence, a competent fire investigator would have ruled out the south floor area as the place where the fire started.[1]
According to their own testimony, Winchell and Redsicker went beyond junk science, and committed perjury and/or evidence tampering in order to conceal the real cause and origin of the fire. Two weeks after the fire, when these investigators had completed their examinations of the fire site, Mason hired independent fire investigators, including William Patrick, an electrical forensic expert, who discovered that "catastrophic" electrical arcing had occurred above the ceiling in the north end of the manufacturing building. This was almost a hundred feet from the south floor area where prosecution experts said the fire started.
The arcing that occurred in the north attic was so intense, that it blew more than half a dozen holes the size of a U.S. quarter through the electrical conduit, which consisted of 2" diameter steel pipe. Moreover, the north attic area, where sparks would have spewed from the holes they created in the steel pipe conduit, was known to contain large amounts of sawdust from the prior owner's furniture-making operations.
The evidence of electrical arcing in the north attic, as well as evidence of other electrical problems, was found still buried under massive debris when Mason's experts used heavy equipment to excavate and preserve it. [2]
In addition to evidence of cause in the north attic, when these investigators analyzed the extensive burning in this area and other evidence in accordance with NFPA 921, they concluded that the north attic area was the true origin of the fire.
Mason's attorney, William Pelella, Jr., immediately contacted Broome County Assistant District Attorney Robert Sharpe, Jr. and requested a meeting at the site so that government investigators could examine the evidence of an electrical fire cause and meet with Mason's fire experts to discuss the cause and origin of the fire. Inexplicably, the prosecutor refused to arrange this meeting or to view the evidence that would prove there was no crime.
Neither would authorities divulge the reason for their arson determination so that Mason's experts could examine this same evidence. Instead, they discarded and destroyed all of the evidence they would claim at trial was proof of arson. [3] When Winchell was asked why he didn't at least photograph evidence before destroying it, he testified that the Broome County budget was insufficient to pay for the film.
It is an accepted standard that a fire investigator must examine and rule out possible accidental causes before reaching a conclusion that a fire was intentionally set. Aware of this obligation, Winchell and Redsicker testified that they did examine the evidence of arcing and other electrical malfunctions found by Mason's experts still buried under debris, before they ruled out the possibility of an electrical cause. This testimony can mean only two things. Either these investigators lied under oath, to conceal their failure to rule out accidental causes, or they deliberately reburied evidence of an accidental cause in an attempt to suppress it.
In addition to its cause and origin expert (David Redsicker), the insurance company had its electrical forensic expert, Peter Vasilow, contribute to its conclusion that an electrical system malfunction could not have caused the fire. Interestingly, Vasilow ruled out any possibility of an electrical system cause, without ever visiting the fire scene to examine the electrical system which he ruled out.
Indicative of the bias which pervaded this prosecution, other evidence which contradicted the arson allegation, was simply ignored. Assistant Fire Chief Tim Dahulich, who was the first fire fighter to arrive at the scene, reported that when he opened the door and looked inside the building, all of the fire was coming down from the ceiling in the exact location where the electrical malfunction occurred in the north attic. This was the only up-close observation of the fire inside the building and was made by a trained fire fighter, yet because it excluded the south floor arson origin, authorities apparently just ignored it.
Other evidence which contradicted the arson scenario disappeared while in Winchell's custody. Critical photographs of the fire's origin, taken by Maureen Dahulich who arrived with her husband, were entrusted to Winchell the day after the fire. The first ten photographs she took upon arriving at the fire, along with others in the series, disappeared prior to trial. Since there were nearly 100 feet between the alleged arson origin and the electrical origin, these missing photographs would have provided irrefutable proof of the fire's true origin, and therefore, its cause. No doubt, the photographs documented her husband's observation that when they arrived, all of the fire was in the north attic of the manufacturing building, refuting the government's south floor arson origin.
As if the disappearance of these photographs wasn't suspicious enough, the negatives, which were stored separately in a file at the county fire station, also disappeared prior to trial.
Apparently the photographs weren't the only evidence in the way of the prosecution's arson scenario. Shortly before trial, Winchell utilized a subpoena to obtain the only copy of the building specification file, telling town building authorities that the evidence would be used at trial. These specifications detailed the building's exceptional fire retardant construction, including two layers of fire-resistant wallboard, proving it was invulnerable to the ground floor arson fire scenario. Yet, Winchell did not turn over this exculpatory evidence or introduce it at trial. Instead, he suppressed it and then falsely testified that "ordinary" construction was used in the building. When asked how he was familiar with the building's construction, he testified that his knowledge of the building came from his knowledge of building codes and his background in construction. All the while, Winchell had secret possession of the evidence which would prove this testimony and that of other government witnesses, to be false. The government has yet to account for the whereabouts of this stolen evidence.
Fabricated Witness and Secret Deal
Without sufficient evidence to win a conviction, the record shows authorities fabricated a witness. Gary Edison was an ex-con who had been hired by Mason as part of a rehabilitation program a couple of years before the fire. The fire occurred in January, 1999 and Mason's trial began in September, 2002. During the years between the fire and Mason's trial, Edison apparently returned to a life of crime and also became an informant for local police (presumably in return for money or other favors.)
Several months before Mason's trial, Edison had racked up five new felony charges in state court. Evidence obtained after trial shows that AUSA Dooley, who was prosecuting Mason in federal court, made a secret deal with Edison. Dooley promised to have all but one of Edison's state charges dismissed, in exchange for Edison's agreement to plead guilty to arson in federal court and testify that he set the fire for Mason. Dooley worked with ADA Sharpe, who was prosecuting Edison's state charges, to ensure Edison would receive a two to four year sentence for the state charge and the federal charge, to be served concurrently in federal prison. Had Edison not made the deal and been prosecuted for all five of the state charges, he could have received a sentence of 35 years-to-life in New York State prison. This exchange of leniency for testimony was never disclosed to Mason's defense. Neither was the truth about the charges which were secretly dismissed.
Shortly after Edison agreed to the deal and signed the arson confession statement, he wrote a letter to the state judge, in which he pleaded for the judge's intervention in an injustice being done to him.[4] In his letter, Edison stated that he is only partly sane, needs mental treatment, has a memory impairment which causes him to make false confessions, has an anxiety disorder which also causes him to make false confessions, and believes he just made one. ADA Sharpe immediately faxed a copy of Edison's letter to AUSA Dooley, as he believed Edison was referring to his federal arson confession and the letter would affect his federal plea.
Two days later at Edison's arson plea hearing in federal court, AUSA Dooley told Judge McAvoy that Edison had written a letter in which he said he had a memory impairment. However, the prosecutor withheld all of Edison's statements about mental incompetence and false confessions, as these would preclude the judge from accepting Edison's arson plea. Instead, Dooley said that Edison's letter referred to confusion about his state sentence, and had nothing to do with his federal arson proceedings. Edison agreed. The judge was told nothing about the real contents of Edison's letter.
When the judge specifically asked if there was any indication of mental incompetence or if Edison had any history of mental illness or treatment, he was falsely told that there was none and the prosecutor urged the judge not to have Edison evaluated. (It would be discovered post trial that in addition to Edison's own claims of incompetence in his letter, the government knew Edison had a history of psychiatric treatment going back 20 years.) The judge was also falsely told that Edison received no promises in exchange for his arson plea and his plea was accepted.
The prosecution had successfully procured a co-defendant. Now it would have to prevent Mason's defense from poking holes in Edison's credibility at trial.
AUSA Dooley began by violating his duty of disclosure, withholding Edison's false confession letter from the defense until two and a half months after he received the letter from ADA Sharpe and two weeks after Mason's trial was in full swing. Dooley finally turned it over on the very eve of Edison's testimony against Mason. Dooley had received a copy of Edison's rap sheet from Det. Kaminski over three months prior to trial, and this impeachment evidence was also withheld from the defense until the day before Edison testified, two weeks into the trial. So much for timely disclosure.
Other impeachment evidence was never disclosed. A week after Edison's federal plea hearing, he gave contradictory testimony in state court that his false confession letter referred to his federal arson proceedings. This testimony amounted to a sworn admission by Edison that his arson confession and testimony against Mason was false, yet this highly material and contradictory state court testimony was never disclosed to Mason's defense. In fact, at Mason's trial, Edison reversed his testimony once again, insisting that the false confession letter referred to his state proceedings and not his federal.
Edison also testified at Mason's trial that he had no drug problem. This was another lie. It was discovered post-trial that he was a heroin addict and that the government knew this, as ADA Sharpe had noted it in Edison's court file. Once again, the federal prosecutor failed to correct this false testimony by his witness or to turn over impeachment evidence which would prove Edison was lying.
At trial, Edison insisted he gained no benefit in exchange for his testimony against Mason. He was then allowed to conceal the benefits he gained and which provided his motive for testifying falsely.
At Mason's trial, Edison testified that only two charges were disposed of in his state plea deal when in fact five charges were. He then testified that he was innocent of the most serious charges and claimed that "an intense investigation" was still on-going into these charges and that someone else was the suspect. The prosecutor never corrected this blatantly false testimony by his witness or informed the court that all of these charges had been dismissed in state court months earlier as part of Edison's state plea deal.
Neither did the prosecutor turn over the evidence which would have proven this testimony was false, although it was in the government's possession or known to the government. This included state court transcripts; security videotape of Edison committing the crimes which were secretly dismissed; and, perhaps most obvious of all, a signed statement Edison had given police prior to his deal with the federal prosecutor, in which he admitted his guilt to the crimes he claimed he was innocent of at Mason's trial.
After concealing the truth about Edison's state charges and plea deal, AUSA Dooley capitalized on Edison's perjuries by repeatedly and falsely insisting to the court during his closing arguments that Edison's testimony against Mason could be believed as he had no motive to testify falsely, and that there was no evidence before the court of Edison's motive for testifying against Mason other than what Edison told the court.[5] The prosecutor failed to tell the judge that the reason there was no evidence before the court, was because he was suppressing it.
After trial, Mason obtained state court transcripts and other court documents, which exposed Edison's fabrication and hidden motivation. In addition, three credible witnesses swore out affidavits stating that Edison told them that he testified against Mason in exchange for his state charges being dropped. One of these affiants, an attorney who was a victim of Edison's recent crime spree, said that ADA Sharpe and Det. Kaminsky (Edison's handler as a police informant) also told him that Edison had cut a deal with authorities in which his state charges would be dropped in return for his testimony in the federal case.
In Edison's discussions with the other affiants, a credit counselor and an elected official, he admitted that neither he nor Mason had anything to do with starting the fire and that he falsely confessed to arson and helped convict Mason in exchange for AUSA Dooley's promise to have the state charges dismissed. Edison also said that the federal prosecutor fabricated his confession statement, coerced him into signing it, and wouldn't bring perjury charges against him because the prosecutor would also be implicated in perjury.
Edison further stated that he was under the influence of drugs when he agreed to the deal, signed the confession statement, and when testifying, and that guards had his drugs waiting for him in the van on the way back to jail after testifying, indicating that authorities not only knew about Edison's drug addiction, but may have used it to further control his testimony against Mason.
That Edison's arson testimony was in fact fabricated, was confirmed by post-trial fire scene reconstruction testing conducted according to the scientific method by the foremost experts in the industry. Doug Carpenter, who was the lead engineer for Combustion Science and Engineering, concluded that Edison's arson story was not physically possible and could be ruled out as the cause of the fire.
Edison testified that he set the fire by pouring the remains of a five ounce can of lighter fluid on papers and debris inside of a plastic barrel. The forensic testing of this scenario revealed that 90 to 180 of Edison's alleged barrels would have been required to generate and sustain the temperatures needed to burn through the fire-resistant ceiling from below. Returning to the grill analogy, temperatures from Edison's alleged barrel wouldn't have produced a satisfactorily grilled steak, had one been attached to the underside of the ceiling. In fact, the temperatures would have been insufficient to cause the solid wood rafters to catch fire, even if there was no ceiling at all. Furthermore, had the fire started in the south floor area, science dictates that inverted "V" burn patterns would not be found on the south wall after the fire.
Moreover, any combustible which provided the fuel to burn through the ceiling, would not itself remain barely burned and still readable. Not only is this illogical on its face, but when Insurance Investigator Redsicker lifted the plastic remnant underneath a stack of papers, which he claimed was the remains of Edison's barrel, his photograph shows that there was no protected pattern on the floor beneath it, indicating that the government's alleged fire load wasn't even on the south floor when the fire started, but fell to the floor from the attic when the ceiling collapsed late in the fire. Since prosecution fire experts testified that the papers were the only combustible on the concrete floor in their area of origin, the lack of a protected pattern underneath them completely eliminates the south floor origin and arson fire scenario.
The likelihood that the papers fell from the attic during the fire was obfuscated by more false testimony. A former employee testified that all papers were stored in the north attic, as the storage planking did not extend to the south end of the attic. This was false and appears to be more suborned perjury, as this same employee told three private investigators that he had been threatened with tax evasion charges by AUSA Dooley prior to testifying and that after testifying, the federal prosecutor chided him for not being more convincing.
Former ATF Fire Investigator, Ron Decker, and fire science expert, John Lentini, a nationally renowned advocate of using research-based scientific methods to investigate fires, concluded that the evidence could not support a determination of arson and that the testimony and conclusions of prosecution experts was inconsistent with the evidence, contrary to industry acceptable fire-investigation standards, and that their baseless arson conclusion was nothing more than junk science. Moreover, a scientifically sound analysis of the evidence was consistent with the defense's north attic origin and accidental electrical fire cause.
False and Misleading Alarm Testimony
The government supported its arson allegation by presenting evidence that Mason deliberately caused the building's fire alarm to be disabled. However, the government possessed evidence which proved its theory of intent relative to the alarm was based on false testimony, and more missing and fabricated evidence.
At the time of the fire, the building had an alarm system that would call in a fire to an alarm monitoring service over the phone lines, yet, no alarm was transmitted. It was discovered after the fire that the phone line allegedly used by the alarm had been disconnected two months earlier. Actually, five of eleven phone lines were disconnected when phone service was switched from Bell Atlantic to CTSI to reduce expenses, and two of these phone lines were disconnected early. One of the two was allegedly the alarm line.
CTSI representatives testified that they knew of no reason that these particular lines were chosen for disconnection and implicated Mason as having them disconnected with the intent of disabling the alarm. However, the prosecution possessed evidence that CTSI had performed a pre-sales analysis of the business's phone service, and that this analysis revealed that the business was being charged for these two phone lines which were unused; that they were not even listed on the customer's phone bill; and that this analysis by CTSI was the reason these lines were disconnected. This analysis apparently disappeared prior to trial. Furthermore, the prosecution possessed evidence that Bell Atlantic agreed with CTSI's assessment, and credited the company's account over four hundred dollars for the unbilled lines on the same date they were disconnected early.
The government also possessed evidence that a Preliminary Sales Form indicating that there was no alarm, and which was presented as proof of intent to disable it, did not exist at the time of the fire and was fabricated after the fact.
Mason's Continued Quest for Justice
Mason has consistently proclaimed his innocence. Since trial, the District Court has denied two new trial motions and a Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief. Mason's first New Trial Motion was based on the post-trial forensic testing and expert reports. In his denial of this motion, Judge McAvoy stated that the expert testimony was not the centerpiece of evidence against Mason, but rather, it was the compelling testimony of Gary Edison that he was hired by Mason to set the fire, along with the evidence at trial that Mason disabled the alarm. The Court did not explain its basis for determining that Edison's arson testimony was credible, in light of the forensic testing, which showed his testimony to be physically impossible.
Mason, then incarcerated and indigent, proceeded to obtain the evidence which exposed Edison's recantations, numerous perjuries, and incentive for testifying falsely against Mason. When presented with this evidence in Mason's second New Trial Motion, the court again denied Mason relief, refused to conduct a hearing, and refused to order the production of still suppressed evidence. The Court stated it did not find Edison's recantations credible. This was despite the fact that Edison's recantations were corroborated by court transcripts, court documents, and forensic testing which also proved every other material aspect of his trial testimony was false. In his second denial, Judge McAvoy downplayed the importance of Edison's testimony to the guilty verdict, stating that the verdict was supported by other testimony and physical evidence, along with the alarm failure. The Court did not say what other testimony or physical evidence it relied upon, and did not explain why it didn't order the production of the still suppressed physical evidence which would exonerate Mason. Nor did the Court explain why it didn't conduct a hearing to determine the true facts surrounding the alarm failure, since it cited this as key to the guilty verdict in both of its decisions and the government never denied Mason's allegations of suborned perjury and suppressed evidence relative to the alarm.
Throughout Mason's struggle to discover the truth and bring it to the attention of the court, the prosecutor has not denied any of the above Brady Violations (suppressed evidence) or Edison's perjuries. Neither has he denied suborning Edison's perjuries. Yet, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's denial. The Appellate Court completely ignored the secret deal and the prosecutor's knowing use of false testimony in its decision. These abuses should have led to an automatic reversal of Mason's conviction, according to the Second Circuit's own case law and that of the Supreme Court. The appellate court and the Supreme Court have quietly reversed this precedent, apparently condoning the use of these tactics to win a conviction.
Mason brought a Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief, and although the government again failed to refute any of the factual allegations or account for the whereabouts of the missing evidence, the District Court denied any relief, denied a hearing, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied any assistance in discovering the truth. Mason filed a motion asking the court to clarify what evidence it based its decision upon, and this motion for clarification was denied without response. Mason has petitioned the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to review the District Court's denial of his Habeas Corpus Petition.
Awards, Appointments, and Financial Gain
In recognition of this prosecution, the United States Attorney's Office honored Broome County Fire Investigator Jeffrey Winchell with an award for his invaluable assistance in obtaining the conviction against Mason. Likewise, the Broome County Fire Department awarded AUSA Kevin Dooley its Man of the Year Award for his prosecution of this case. Upon receiving the award, Dooley extolled the advantages of prosecuting arson in federal court over New York State court, explaining that no actual evidence of arson is necessary so long as you have the testimony of a co-defendant.
After winning this conviction, AUSA Dooley was appointed by the United States Justice Department to the top post in Iraq as Liaison Officer of the Regime Crimes Office, where he was the primary spokesman for the Justice Department. In this position, he was also in charge of training Iraqi prosecutors and judges on Constitutional Ethic.
Edison was released after less than two years in prison and is now a free man. Authorities have sealed his court and police records as well as some convictions. Other agencies have refused Mason's requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act.
The insurance company has refused to pay for the fire loss. The court ordered Mason to pay the insurance company $16,000 for its fire investigation and assistance in convicting him.
Mason was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and has been incarcerated since July, 2003 for a crime that never happened.
"…jurists from Iraq have received crash courses in legal training from lawyers specially appointed by the US Justice Department,
rich in the rhetoric of constitutional ethic
and habeas corpus."
The Contemporary Review, Summer 2006
____________________________________________
:
Footnote 1: NFPA 921 is a peer-reviewed compendium of government, insurance, and private investigators' contributions and scientifically based tests. As such, it's been adopted by the ATF, the DOJ, FEMA, and most local and state government fire investigation agencies, including New York State. Visit the web site of any of these organizations, and you'll see references to NFPA 921 as the standard guide for scientifically sound fire investigations.
NFPA 921 4.17.2.1 Interpretation of Inverted Cone Patterns. "Inverted cone patterns are manifestations of relatively short-lived fires that do not fully evolve into floor-to-ceiling flame plumes or flame plumes that are not vertically restricted by ceilings."
No wonder Redsicker testified that he didn't follow the ANSI standard when interpreting burn patterns. In stark contrast to this test-based interpretation of the evidence, Redsicker testified at the Grand Jury that inverted V burn patterns are caused by "an obscure shaped puddle of flammable liquid" on the floor in front of the wall and that they are evidence of the fire starting on the floor in front of these patterns and climbing up the wall. This interpretation helped garner the indictment against Mason, but by the time of trial, this would have contradicted Edison's testimony that he started the fire in a barrel of papers. Redsicker simply changed his testimony, claiming that the burn patterns and other evidence corroborated Edison's testimony. Likewise, at Grand Jury Redsicker said the plastic remnant was the remains of the kind of container that would be found under a sink and that it was probably used to carry accelerant, but at trial he said that it was the remains of Edison's 50 gallon barrel. Apparently, Redsicker was willing to testify that the evidence meant whatever he needed it to mean so the insurance company wouldn't have to pay for the fire loss. Similarly, Winchell testified to the Grand Jury that burn patterns indicated that "gallons and gallons" of accelerant had been poured across the south floor. At trial, he testified that Edison's arson story, that he poured less than five ounces of lighter fluid into a barrel of papers, was consistent with the evidence. Winchell also testified at trial that the plastic from Edison's barrel would have melted and flowed to the south wall to cause the burn patterns on this wall - testimony that is completely unsupported by any evidence of melted flow on the concrete floor, and directly contradicted by the science-based meaning of the burn patterns on the south wall.
(RETURN)
Footnote 2: The evidence of an electrical cause discovered in the debris included a three-foot section of two-inch-diameter steel conduit, which had multiple blow holes the size of a quarter, as well as evidence of various malfunctions inside the electrical panel boxes. Aluminum wiring, which is known for causing electrical fires, was utilized in the building's internal electrical distribution system. Six months prior to the fire, an employee noticed sparks flying out from the panel which brings the electrical service into the building. NYSEG was called and shut down operations for the day while repairs were made. Former employees also testified to constant problems with overloaded circuits and other electrical malfunctions which resulted in manufacturing equipment malfunctions. These problems were known to Winchell and Redsicker at the time of their investigations, and apparently ignored in their determination to rule out the possibility of an electrical cause in order to conclude the fire was intentionally set. It should be noted that Broome County did not have an electrical expert examine the evidence and the insurance company's electrical expert ruled out the possibility of an electrical cause without ever visiting the site to examine the building's electrical system.
(RETURN)
Footnote 3: Contrary to all standards of care in fire investigation, prosecution experts did not preserve any of the evidence they claimed was evidence of arson, or which would have disproved their arson origin. This included a) the unburned papers which they claimed were used to start the fire; b) an 8 x 14 inch plastic remnant found beneath the papers, which they claimed was the remains of a large plastic barrel and which Mason contends was most likely a small manufacturing component from previous inventory, used to store papers in the attic; c) unburned electrical receptacles which hung from the ceiling in the south end of the building, and which would have disproved the south floor origin; and d) electrical wiring from the south wall, which Winchell claimed could rule out the electrical arcing in the north attic as the fire's cause. If a plaintiff in a civil case threw out the evidence upon which its claim was based, the case would be thrown out of court, yet this basic standard of fairness was not adhered to in this criminal case, in which a man's very freedom was at stake.
(RETURN)
Footnote 4, Edison's letter to Judge Mathews (about which AUSA Dooley told Judge McAvoy that Edison was referring to confusion about his state sentence, that the purpose of the letter was to get clarification, and that Dooley never had any indication that Edison was mentally incompetent.)
Sir:
I am writing you to request your intervention with the injustice being done to me.
Through out my appearances before you and so-called agreements by Attorney James Mack, and the district attorney and others, there were many times I wanted the following problem addressed and never was. So I'm asking as a Judge to so order this to be addressed now.
I suffer from a documented medical condition 2 to be exact.
1) I am memory impaired! To the point of not remembering if I did or did not do what I'm being charged with or whether I may have said I did thing that I don't remember just because someone told me I should. I am very easily lead! Because of this, I'm don't remember why I'm here, sir, or what got me here! I told everyone from Police - to - DA to Mr. Mack, everyone ignored me. I'm not sure of anything at this point.
2) I also suffer from social anxiety disorder - meaning I always scared of everyone and everyplace.
Also - this disorder will make me say I did things when I really didn't, I think I did just that now! It will make say and agree to things just so I don't have a problem and want to leve and be alons where I'm safe. It gets and is worse add that to a memory impairment I am very unstable and can't understand what happened to me.
I request that I should be placed in the state hospital for evaluation & treatment until they decide I am stable enough to comprehend and understand what if anything I may have or may have not done.
I require treetment not jail. I haven't done anything wrong that I remember, all I'm guilty of is being a mental health patient and not fully sane.
I should be there not here, or you have just locked up a very unsane person - not knowingly.
Gary Edison
(RETURN)
Footnote 5: The prosecutor's closing remarks included, (1) "in terms of his [Edison's] motivation, I would ask the court to consider ... Not only is there no proof as to any motivation on his part to come forward, other than what he said, but it just doesn't make sense", and (2) "how does it make sense other than what he's telling you?", and (3) "Yeah, is it possible that a spaceship came down from Mars and someone started this fire accidentally? You can always speculate about this but there's no evidence in this case, other than what Gary Edison told you, about his motivation for coming forward. And no other speculative theories, Judge, really make sense because if Mr. Mason had no involvement in this case, Gary Edison would have no motivation to come forward", and (4) So there's really no credible evidence before the court that he has any independent motive."
(RETURN)
