|
State Fire Investigator Testifies Fatal Fire Likely Set
Intentionally After Ruling Out All Other Causes in Day 4 of Exford Trial
Published: March 10, 2022 at
09:30 p.m.
By: Nick Altmire
Jurors in the murder and arson trial of Shawn L.
Exford were shown this video on Day 4 of the trial on March 10, 2022,
captured from a surveillance camera located at the State Farm insurance office just down and across the
street from
the scene of the fatal apartment fire at 7525 S.
State St. in Lowville on November 30, 2019.
Lowville, NY- The murder and
arson trial of Shawn
L. Exford entered Day 4 today, with jurors hearing the
conclusion of NYS Fire Investigator Edward Stevens’ testimony and seeing
the surveillance video captured from across the street for the first time.
Mr. Exford is
accused of intentionally starting a fire inside the stairwell at 7525 S.
State St. in Lowville on November 30, 2019, that claimed the lives of
Catherine Crego and Saratina
Kilbourne.
The trial resumed
right around 9:15 this morning, with Mr. Stevens returning to the stand to
finish the testimony in the case that he started on Wednesday morning.
On Wednesday, Mr.
Stevens walked the jurors through hundreds of photos taken by investigators
in each of the four apartments, explaining how his team was able to
eliminate each of the four apartments in the building as the origin of the
fire. He also went through photos of the exterior of the building and the
basement, showing how he was able to eliminate those areas of the apartment
building as the origin as well.
This morning, Mr.
Stevens opened his testimony by telling the jurors that his team was able
to identify the common hallway at the front entrance of the building as the
origin of the fire. He explained that once an area of origin has been identified,
the next step is trying to determine the cause of the fire. He noted that
the electrical outlets, light fixtures, light switches, and junction box in
the common hallway were all removed and examined and were ruled out as the
cause of the fire, showing the jury photos of each item
and explaining why they could be ruled out as the cause.
Mr. Stevens said
he was also able to rule out the use of an accelerant as the cause of the
fire. The only chemicals identified on the first floor of the building were
a metal container of floor stripper in the front apartment- which wasn’t
located in the area of origin and determined not
to be the cause, and a paint can in the closet under the stairway which was
determined to not be the cause.
After eliminating
all natural causes, Mr. Stevens told the jury he concluded, based on the
analysis of the data presented and collected, that the human introduction
of an open flame was the probable cause of the fire.
At this point
Assistant District Attorney Caleb Petzoldt read a
stipulation agreed to by both the prosecution and defense into the record
attesting to the authenticity of two videos that were entered into evidence.
The first video, which
was referenced in the prosecution’s opening statement, was played to the
jury for the first time. The video is from a surveillance camera located at
the State Farm Insurance office just down and across the street from the
apartment building. The nearly 10-minute video (which can be
seen here via the media pool camera feed that has
been authorized in the courtroom by presiding Judge Daniel R. King for
video only) starts at 11:43 p.m. on the night of November 30, 2019.
The video was first
played in its entirety for the jury to see, marking the first piece of
video evidence introduced in the case. The video was then played a second
time, with Mr. Petzoldt stopping it along the way
to ask Mr. Stevens questions about his observations. The video was first
stopped at the time of 11:43:40, where Mr. Stevens points out that a glow
and flicker can be seen with an individual exiting the building (in the
upper right portion of the video). Mr. Stevens pointed out to jurors that,
as explained when discussing fire science yesterday, the stairwell provides
the perfect “chimney effect” fires seek to grow as they always want to go
up and out. When the video is stopped just three minutes later at 11:46:43,
Mr. Stevens pointed out that fire can now be seen inside the bedroom of the
lower front apartment. He told jurors that he determined a smoldering cigarette
butt could not have been the cause based on the way the fire spread.
Jurors were then
shown a short video clip recorded by a passerby on the night of the fire,
which Mr. Stevens said further supported his investigation’s conclusion on
the start and path of the fire. The investigation concluded that the fire
originated in the common hallway area inside the front entrance of the
building, travelling through the bedroom area of the first-floor front
apartment and up the stairwell into the kitchen area of the upper front apartment,
where there was an open window, and up into the attic and out the back of
the building.
Mr. Stevens
concluded his testimony by saying that after the completion of the
investigation and ruling out all other causes, the only thing that couldn’t
be “taken off the table” as the cause was “the introduction of a flame or
spark with human involvement and intention.”
Court then
recessed at 10:10 a.m. for just over an hour to allow defense attorney John
Hallett to prepare his cross-examination of Mr. Stevens. Testimony resumed
at 11:15, with the cross-examination of Mr. Stevens. Mr. Hallett asked a number of questions about the weather conditions that
evening and past code violations in the building. When asked why electrical
wiring was investigated in the common hallway but not the remainder of the
building, Mr. Stevens responded that it was only necessary in the area of origin to eliminate that as the cause.
The cross-examination concluded at 12:20 p.m. After a brief redirect by the
prosecution, the trial went into recess for lunch at 12:25 p.m.
Steven Ahrendt, of New Jersey, was the first witness to take
the stand when the trial resumed at 1:35 p.m. Mr. Ahrendt
testified that he owned the apartment building at 7525 South State Street,
purchasing the property in 2005. He said he was made aware of the fire by
receiving a call from Karen Koster, one of the
tenants that escaped the fire. He said he came up to the location around
December 12, 2019 to arrange for the demolition of
the building after it was condemned. Under cross-examination he stated that
his last visit to the property prior to the fire was on October 24, 2019,
when he observed a working smoke alarm in Ms. Crego’s
apartment. Mr. Ahrendt’s brief testimony concluded
at 1:40 p.m.
The next witness
to testify was Brian Mushtare, who resided in the
lower back apartment in the building at the time of the fire. Mr. Mushtare was rescued from the front porch roof on the
night of the fire. He said he lived in the building for 2 years and had
known Ms. Crego for over 50 years, visiting her
apartment hundreds of times.
Mr. Mushtare testified that on the night of the fire he
arrived at Ms. Crego’s apartment between 5 and 6
in the evening, where a number of individuals came
and went throughout the evening. He said they were sitting around talking,
having drinks and watching music videos on the
television.
He said Mr.
Exford left to go get some movies from his apartment down the street at
some point late in the evening, leaving himself, Ms. Crego and Ms. Kilbourne at Ms. Crego’s
apartment. He indicated that there had been no altercations with Mr. Exford
prior to him leaving.
Mr. Mushtare said he was cooking some food a short time
later when Ms. Crego asked if he was burning her
food. He said at that point he could see and smell smoke coming in around
the door to the stairway. When he opened the door
he saw a wall of flames racing up the stairs. He said he and Ms. Crego dropped to the floor due to the smoke and crawled
to the front window, which he broke with a table leg. He could not see Ms.
Kilbourne at this time, he testified. After escaping onto the front porch,
Mr. Mushtare said he tried to drag Ms. Crego out the window but was overcome by the heavy
black smoke. Minutes later Mr. Mushtare was
rescued from the porch roof and stated he saw Mr. Exford standing there with
videos, when Mr. Exford gave him a hug and said he was so sorry. Mr. Mushtare said he was then confronted by Jasyn Griffin, a witness who testified on Tuesday,
asking why he didn’t save the others.
The prosecution
finished questioning Mr. Mushtare at 1:55, with
Mr. Hallett then questioning him under cross-examination. Mr. Hallett asked
about drug activity in the vacant lower front apartment and Mr. Mushtare said that he had witnessed numerous
individuals using the apartment to “shoot up drugs.” When asked if 7525
South State Street was known as a meth house, Mr. Mushtare
said that was correct.
Mr. Mushtare’s testimony concluded at 2:08 p.m.
The next witness
called was Joseph Simpson, a senior investigator with the New York State
Police’s contaminated crime scene team. Mr. Simpson said his team was
called to the scene to investigate and determine if materials used in the
manufacture of methamphetamine were present at the scene. He testified that
upon the conclusion of his investigation it was his opinion that a meth
explosion was not the cause of the fire due to the lack of materials at the
scene. Under cross-examination, when asked by Mr. Hallett, Mr. Simpson said
it was possible that the materials needed for the “one-pot” method of
making meth could be carried around in a backpack, but again noted there
was no indication a meth explosion had occurred.
Mr. Simpson’s
testimony concluded at 2:20.
The next witness
was Shawn Finkle, an investigator with the major crimes
unit at the New York State Police. He testified he was assigned to the case
and was the lead desk manager, assigning and coordinating leads in the case
with all involved agencies. There was no cross-examination of this witness
and his testimony concluded at 2:28.
The last witness
of the day was Ted Bach. Mr. Bach was walking his dog the evening of the
fire and is seen in the surveillance video having a brief encounter with
Mr. Exford as he left the apartment building that night. Mr. Bach said it
was very cold that night and he had the hood of his jacket up, somewhat
obstructing his side vision. He testified that he had crossed paths with an
individual he didn’t know or recognize, who commented on how well behaved
his dog was as he passed by, before breaking into a jog after crossing the
street in front of him. There was no cross examination and Mr. Bach
concluded his testimony at 2:35.
The trial then
went into recess, as Mr. Bach was the last witness scheduled for the day, and will resume at 9 a.m. on Friday.
Judge King told
jurors before leaving that the trial was expected to take at least one more
week and that they could be deliberating the case by next Thursday.
|
