CT - Five die in Stamford Christmas Day fire 2011.12.25

New Posts

She certainly seems devastated, but if she doesn't blame her boyfriend because she doesn't think the ashes started a fire, I think she is deep in denial. Those ashes can stay dangerous for a long time, and they were not properly disposed of, by her own admission. The ashes were put into a paper bag and then put on top of plastic bin, whereas for proper disposal they should have been put into a metal container with a lid and doused with water. Her boyfriend sticking his hand into this bag does not make for a proper ash disposal.
 
I just do not understand how they can sue the city for this loss. If they sue and win, anytime there is a fire people will be suing their city, fire department, etc. The owner of the house and contractor was responsible for the renovations. The city did not put the ashes in a bag, the city had nothing to do with this fire starting.
 
I agree. By the woman's own admission, her boyfriend put ashes into a paper bag and then put the bag on top of plastic bin. How is the city responsible for this? Do city workers have to come into every home to make sure people don't do this?
 
the way i understood the interview, the lawsuit was filed because no one will explain who ordered, or approved the bulldozing of the house. badger was never consulted and didn't even know about it until after it was done. i can understand this.

another thing, given the speed with which this happened, one has to wonder how much investigating was done. she claims there were working fire alarms, which did not go off, and wants to know why they were not taken and sent for some sort of testing.

point being, while i still cannot understand why anyone would put ashes in a paper bag, or leave them in the house....given what i heard in the interview, i can understand wanting answers. if no one is willing to own up to demanding the house be demolished, or provide details of an investigation, or even prove they actually did one...even i might reach a point where a lawsuit seemed like the only way.
 
The smoke detectors (assuming they were operational) presumably should have worked regardless of what the cause of the fire was-especially if there were multiple smoke detectors. The hard wired ones weren't operational. Supposedly there were battery powered smoke detectors installed. Did these people ever test the smoke detectors to make sure they were operational?

"Cohen’s statement says the home, which was under renovation at the time of the fire, did have “hard wired” smoke detectors installed, but they were yet to be connected to the electrical system and were not functioning. It is also clear that five or six battery powered smoke detectors were purchased and installed before the fire, but neither Badger, Borcina or any of the family’s neighbors said they heard the detectors the morning of the fire, according to Cohen."

http://www.thehour.com/stamford_tim...cle_f8d10133-fcda-5528-b50c-e6ada489a819.html
 
Blondie in Spokane said:
Estates of grandparents killed in fire to sue Stamford

Read more: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/new...lled-in-fire-to-sue-3665124.php#ixzz1z1OjSBW3
Click to expand...

I really don't think there is much merit to these lawsuits on behalf of estates. As far as I can tell, this house didn't belong to grandparents and I really doubt any belongings they had inside it amounted to much value.
Regardless, I was also very surprised how quickly this house was demolished.
I have no idea why it was done so fast, considering how many people died.
Why wasn't proper arson investigation done?
 
jjenny said:
I wonder who was in charge of putting up those battery operated smoke alarms.

"According to the state attorney’s report, investigators were unable to come to a “consensus as to how many smoke alarms were present, where they were located, whether they had been removed or whether they had been disabled.”"
http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...i-was-beaten-back-by-smoke-like-an-ocean?lite
Click to expand...

This is another reason why the house should not have been demolished immediately afterward. There is fencing and other precautions that could have been put in place to ensure looters, etc. didn't enter the property while a thorough investigation was held.

However, I do not believe the lawsuit(s) against the city have much merit due to the owner(s) own admission that the ashes/embers were improperly disposed of.

:(

MOO
 
panthera said:
This is another reason why the house should not have been demolished immediately afterward. There is fencing and other precautions that could have been put in place to ensure looters, etc. didn't enter the property while a thorough investigation was held.

However, I do not believe the lawsuit(s) against the city have much merit due to the owner(s) own admission that the ashes/embers were improperly disposed of.

:(

MOO
Click to expand...

Well I totally agree. As I recall we were all shocked here, when they demolished the house so fast.
Mother says none of the alarms went off, it was very quiet. Well, were any batteries actually put into these alarms? The hard wired ones were removed, but supposedly battery operated ones were purchased? But were these alarms even operational? Arson investigators could have found that out, but the house was demolished so quickly. So, I believe, as a result, they couldn't charge anyone even with negligence, because proper arson investigation was not carried out.
 
jjenny said:
Well I totally agree. As I recall we were all shocked here, when they demolished the house so fast.
Mother says none of the alarms went off, it was very quiet. Well, were any batteries actually put into these alarms? The hard wired ones were removed, but supposedly battery operated ones were purchased? But were these alarms even operational? Arson investigators could have found that out, but the house was demolished so quickly. So, I believe, as a result, they couldn't charge anyone even with negligence, because proper arson investigation was not carried out.
Click to expand...

That's the entire problem. With the demolishing of the house that quickly a thorough investigation couldn't be carried out, even to determine if the battery operated smoke detectors were installed and/or functional. As a contractor, Borcina should have made sure they were in place when the hard-wired detectors were disconnected, especially in such an old home undergoing major renovations. Also, any reasonable person would make sure there were working smoke detectors with Christmas decorations and small children inside the home.

MOO
 
Just tragedy all around and what makes it worse, so completely avoidable.
 
Blondie in Spokane said:
Madonna Badger Wants To Know Where fire Debris Went

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Mom-wants-to-know-where-fire-debris-went-3697160.php
Click to expand...
From the article:

"According to Badger's motion, as a result of AMEC dismantling the remains of the house all her personal possessions have been lost or destroyed and she has been unable to produce a property inventory for insurance purposes. In addition, the motion states, the information is necessary to determine the existence of wrongful conduct in connection with the fire."

It is understandable she wants an inventory of possessions for insurance purposes, however, it is also confusing why she would want to determine the existence of wrongful conduct when it was her boyfriend who disposed of the embers and without any "evidence" no charges can be brought. Or has she severed ties with him now and would want him prosecuted?

:waitasec:

MOO
 
During her interview, she said she doesn't blame the boyfriend, so I don't think she wants him prosecuted.
I think she hopes it wasn't the ashes starting the fire. For obvious reasons.
 
jjenny said:
During her interview, she said she doesn't blame the boyfriend, so I don't think she wants him prosecuted.
I think she hopes it wasn't the ashes starting the fire. For obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Thanks, missed that part of her interview. If not the ashes, however, what would be the cause to exempt him from negligence as he was renovating the house? Just can't follow her thinking, I suppose.

MOO
 
panthera said:
Thanks, missed that part of her interview. If not the ashes, however, what would be the cause to exempt him from negligence as he was renovating the house? Just can't follow her thinking, I suppose.

MOO
Click to expand...

I don't know. She saw her boyfriend dispose of ashes, and she didn't stop him because she thought it was safe-since he put his hand into the ashes. I don't think that's easy to live with. So she now says she doesn't think ashes started the fire.
 
Every time I read about this tragedy,I shake all over.No one should ever have to endure losing all of your kids at one time.Madonna lost her kids and parents at the same time.All because embers weren't disposed of properly.I fail to understand why the boyfriend didn't put smoke alarms in that house.He was very careless and irresponsible.To me this is where the blame lies.He is a contractor,and he knows how the rules are played in the housing game.To me the parents are angry and they have a right to be.They have lost so much.God bless them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 201 more.
Total: 3,820 (members: 202, guests: 3,618)

Online statistics

Members online
202
Guests online
3,618
Total visitors
3,820
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,825
Messages
17,959,626
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top