Burned
Page 27
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