In the early morning hours of July 22, 1989, at approximately 3:30AM, the silence of the night would soon give way to chaos in the neighborhood of Parkton. The quietness was first broken by frantic neighbors yelling and banging on the outside walls of a house situated at 106 Spruce Street in Moncton. A fire was discovered raging throughout the front portion of the house and calls were placed to 911.

 

Marc Caissie, his wife Suzanne and their five month-old baby daughter Angèle were the occupants of the

home. They were not the owners but were renting the house from Guy Chavarie since September 1, 1988. Mr. Chavarie was Marc’s uncle by marriage; Guy’s wife Bernadette was the sister of Marc’s mother Anne-Marie Caissie.

 

First and foremost, this website is my attempt to set the record straight regarding certain aspects about this fire and its aftermath. My goal is to raise as much awareness as possible in order for someone to come forward and provide information to help solve this horrible crime. My name is Charles Caissie and I am Marc Caissie’s brother.

 

July 22, 1989 is as vivid as ever for me. Not one day has gone by in the past 33 years where I have not

thought about this tragic and painful chapter of my life. I clearly remember the squawking of walkie-

talkies and the commotion outside my bedroom window that night. I lived nearby on Churchill Street,

which was one street over from Spruce Street. When I got up to pull the curtains back from my bedroom

window, the sight of a column of smoke rising in the air in the vicinity of my brother’s rented bungalow

still haunts me.

 

I later learned that when Moncton Police Force Const. Gary Clements and Const. Brian McFarlane

received their dispatch at 3:40AM, they were on the scene within one minute. Being the first officers on

the scene, they joined the neighbors gathered who were trying to rouse the young family still inside.

 

Const. Clements made his way to the rear of the house, pushed the back door open with his foot and

saw two people on the kitchen floor, about 10 feet from the back door. He was soon joined by Const.

McFarlane and through their heroic actions, they crawled through the kitchen and managed to get

Suzanne out of the house and onto the back patio. By this time firefighters had arrived on scene fully

geared with breathing equipment, and Const. McFarlane directed a flashlight on Marc and firefighters were able to extract him from the house as well. I am forever grateful to these two officers and their actions.

 

I was at the scene in front of the house as it burned and when Marc and Suzanne were taken by

ambulance to the hospital, I immediately ran home to put a t-shirt on and then ran to the hospital. I

walked through the hospital looking for answers and asking nurses where Marc and Suzanne had been

taken. I was directed towards a hallway, where I met up with Suzanne’s father, Paul Cormier. He had a

solemn look on his face and proceeded to tell me that Marc had passed away at the scene and Angèle

was also deceased when she was found in her crib. As for Suzanne, she was burnt on 95% of her body

and she was on a respirator.

 

I was horrified and shock seeped deep down to my core.

​

​

INITIAL POLICE INVESTIGATION AND INQUEST

​

"They weren't supposed to be there." I was told this personally that night at the scene of the fire, while I stood outside at the front of the burning house. I also know of a few people who heard the same thing that night and weeks afterwards. I will hold off from naming who this statement can be attributed to, but in hindsight, I believe it's quite significant and telling when weighed against everything else that I've come to know.

 

The Moncton Police Force began an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the fire’s origin.

Marc and Suzanne had company that evening (July 21, 1989), and by all accounts, everything seemed

normal. The mood was upbeat and both Marc and Suzanne were happy and cheerful, since both were

starting vacation that night for two weeks. They had planned to go to our family cottage in Bouctouche

that very night, where my parents were waiting for them, but at the last minute they decided to wait until the next day. Is it a coincidence that the fire would happen that night? I think not.

​

The investigation conducted by the Moncton Police Force was inadequate and of poor-quality, and in my

opinion, I believe the investigators were not up to the task. When my brother Marc was specifically

targeted as the person who may have been responsible for the fire, with the police tossing around

unsubstantiated claims and wild theories, it has become easy for me to see exactly how shoddy and

flawed the investigation truly was at the time, leading to many missed opportunities and long awaited

justice.

 

A couple of days after the fire, a couple of investigators came to my parent’s house to ask a few

questions. As one can imagine, my parents and I were clearly distraught.

 

When my mother raised the subject on what was next and how long the investigation would take, one

of the investigators said (and I quote) “well I hope to wrap this up in the next couple of weeks because

I’m going on holidays." Why would I invent such a statement out of the clear blue sky if it were not true

that such words were spoken? I remember I was dumbstruck when I heard it and I was also annoyed by

the casual and nonchalant demeanor of this investigator. His approach to everything irked me. Our

world had been turned upside down and we were smack dab in the middle of a living hell, barely

surviving, barely breathing. Who cared about someone’s holidays that were coming up? We had just lost

Marc and Angèle, and Suzanne was in the hospital fighting for her life, burnt on 95% of her body.

 

I could certainly make the argument that this comment regarding the need to “wrap this up fast”

because “I have holidays coming up” is not only in poor taste and unprofessional given the

circumstances, but it also planted the seed in my mind very early on that this investigation

was hurried and troublesome.

 

I am beyond convinced that tunnel vision and confirmation bias set in early on in this original police

investigation. I also believe this investigator with the Moncton Police Force convinced the Cormier family

that Marc was responsible for the fire. My parents and I only met with the police investigators

once, never to hear from the Moncton Police Force again.

​

The night of the fire, Marc and Suzanne had company as stated previously, and when the women went

out for a couple of beers at a pub somewhere, the guys stayed at the house to look after Angèle. They

had a few drinks of their own. It was a Friday night, and the two men relaxed and chatted casually.

 

Marc mentioned to his friend in passing, when they started reminiscing about old times that he had

contemplated suicide four years prior when he and his high school sweetheart had broken up.

This was just chat and reminiscing between two old buddies and Marc said he had snapped out of it

shortly after thinking about it and never had those thoughts again.

 

Does anyone care to know how many times I thought about ending all the pain that I have in my heart

when I was younger? How many times I thought: “there must be a better place than this.” Nevertheless,

I am still around am I not. Just as Marc was still around four years later and I cannot stress this

enough…talk and reminiscing is just that, talk. Can we not confide and share feelings with family and

friends without being judged mercilessly about it? Most of us, if not all, have said things to family and

friends in confidence, as a way to express ourselves and show our humanity, without being nailed to a

wall and have our words twisted and used against us.

 

However, when the police got hold of this information, to them this was anything but reminiscing.

Apparently, for them, this was a motive to burn one’s self alive and it represented the answer that they

were looking for. As crazy and ludicrous as that may sound, and yes it sounds ridiculous because it is

ridiculous, this is how the wild police theory of Marc being responsible for the fire was born.

​

So I caution anyone to be careful with what you say and how you say it and to whom, because if God

forbid something should happen to you under mysterious circumstances, well the same thing that

happened to my brother Marc with regards to the police making up crazy theories because of a

conversation you had with someone regarding something that happened four years prior, it could be

used against you as well in the same way.

​

Marc was not suicidal and he was just living life as best he could (don’t we all?). Was he perfect? Of

course not, but who among us is? I had another brother named Pierre who drowned two years prior, on

June 15, 1987, while trying to save another young man named Edward Taylor. As painful and

heart broken as we all were when this happened, Marc would certainly not turn around a mere two

years later and set fire to a house to kill himself, his wife and his baby daughter. He would never have

put my parents and me though that; Marc was a caring and compassionate individual and he did not like

violence. Just the idea of anyone setting themselves on fire to die intentionally is probably one of the

most painful ways imaginable to take one's life. Countless other ways exist that are much quicker and a

lot less painful, if someone was really contemplating such action. So the mere thought of a fire to do so

is another reason it makes no sense Marc would be responsible for the fire.

 

To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that Marc turned into some kind of monster or became

insane or detached from reality. Some may say "people snap" and while that may be true, I would lay

my life on the line to bet that Marc was/is 110% totally and completely innocent of any wrongdoing

pertaining to this fire and I will believe that until the day I take my last breath. Common sense, logic,

proper reasoning, facts and knowing my brother's heart and character tell me I am right. It is just not

plausible or believable that he would have done that and zero evidence has ever existed to back up that

stupid ridiculous claim by the investigators of the Moncton Police Force. But that stigma and that

perception that they irresponsibly and carelessly tossed about still haunts me and angers me to no end.

​

On December 4th and 5th, 1989, an inquest was called into the fire. The minute one of the investigators

began testifying, he zeroed in on Marc. He demonized Marc and portrayed him as an out of control

alcoholic who was addicted to gambling, magnified any personal problem beyond belief as proof that

Marc was responsible for the fire. I could not believe how much time he spent on Marc’s alcohol

consumption or any gambling (VLT machines). How does alcohol or playing VLT machines, which by the

way millions upon millions of people do every day, contribute and lead to someone setting a house on

fire?  A house that you do not own, and for which you have no renter’s insurance for your belongings.

​

I myself drank heavily at the age of 24/25, more so than Marc did and I’m still here and

I changed my ways. We can all change our ways and become better versions of ourselves. We are all

works in progress and no one among us walks on water.  Marc was no different than any of us, he had a

great heart and potential to be a better version of himself as well, like we all strive to be as individuals.

Marc’s boss testified at the inquest and spoke highly of him, stating that Marc was a great worker who

never missed time off work for anything, was always punctual, had a great attitude and was liked by

everyone. People cannot judge a book by its cover and no one is in the position to say it was

predetermined or predestined that something bad was going to happen because of this or that. To say

this fire was somehow preordained because Marc liked to have a drink and played VLT machines is

grossly misconstruing his character, and it totally misses the point on this entire tragedy and how the

fire happened.

​

So the investigators with the Moncton Police Force wanted to make us all believe that if you drink and

gamble and something bad happens, you are automatically at fault? Somehow if you drink and gamble

you are considered a loose canon degenerate loser, who is prone to burning a house down while in it,

and risking the life of your wife and baby daughter in the process, all to gain nothing in return? Is this

what the police were suggesting with their crazy theory? The insinuations that randomly came out of

this investigator’s mouth can certainly be interpreted as such, given the fact so much focus was shone

on Marc’s alcohol consumption and playing VLT machines. Marc was five times the man I was when I was 25 and he probably would still be today.

​

One very important fact to remember and I stress this a lot, Marc and Suzanne did not have renters

insurance at the time of the fire because it was not as common back then to have such insurance as it is

today. So what would Marc have gained by such a fire? Nothing. If a financial motive could have ever

been proven, as is often the case with arson, then it could have opened the door slightly to Marc

perhaps being involved. However, even that theory, if able to be been proven, would quickly fall apart

because Marc would have known, he would have been the first person investigated. An arson for

insurance purposes requires a person to have a motive, means and opportunity. Marc did not fit the bill

on any of these at all.

​

• No “motive” because he would gain nothing at all financially.

 

• No “means” because no flammable accelerant was found inside or outside the house and a fire

 that was proven to be deliberately set by a flammable liquid does not come into being magically from thin air - someone had to pour something - for the fire to start and spread.

 

• No “opportunity” because if you look at all the facts about that night with having friends

over to visit for a pleasant evening, ordering food, making plans for the next day, starting vacation and being happy and cheerful, along with the way the fire started and where the high concentration of the fire happened, it suggests clearly that opportunity is lacking and I will expand on this point further down in this story.

 

As I stated previously, I truly believe tunnel vision and confirmation bias were on full display during the investigation and subsequent inquest testimony by the police. When asked if there was any evidence to back up their claim that Marc was somehow responsible for the fire and had a motive, the investigator specifically answered “no, none whatsoever”. The inquest is a publicly available document that I am considering posting on this site.

​

It’s easy to blame a dead person for being responsible for something when it seems like the most

convenient theory, since deceased people cannot talk and defend themselves, and it makes an

investigation much easier to conclude and go away. An investigator with Codiac RCMP told me

that police should never go with just a “hunch”, they need evidence to back up their claims. The

Moncton Police Force had no such evidence to back up their claim pertaining to Marc. And by

railroading and bashing Marc’s good name and reputation senselessly, it has unleashed a fiery response

in me that still permeates inside my entire being 34 years later.

​

I cannot get passed it and I cannot ignore the irony in all of this, with how Marc’s character was

attacked the way it was, yet I know of certain officers with the Moncton Police Force who investigated my brother's case who did terrible things and victimized women with sexual harassment, leading to their dismissal from the police force. Hypocrisy at it's finest if you ask me. This was/is public news and information, and the facts speak for themselves.

​

 

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR

 

I hired a Private Investigator in May of 2019, to look into the original police report (a public document that I have attached in the News tab "Archived Documents") and to also do a review of all the testimony in the 350-page / 2-Volume Transcript of Proceedings of the inquest that occurred in early December of 1989. The report he provided to me of his findings was 30 pages in length and very informative.

 

Tom Martin, the owner of Martin & Associates based out of Halifax, has extensive experience and is a

well respected former senior homicide investigator with the Halifax City Police. He is designated by the

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia as an Expert Witness in Crime Scene Analysis.

 

Mr. Martin’s credentials are substantial, and the way he dissected the police report and all the testimony at the inquest was an eye opener. He debunked Marc’s responsibility with the fire in layman’s terms. To know the fire is to know that Marc did not set it. A very high concentration of flammable liquid was poured on the floor in the front entrance area of the house (between the living room and kitchen) going out into the kitchen towards the back door. I have always believed the person responsible for lighting the fire entered and left through the back door.

 

The back door/patio area provided good cover to conceal any approach to the house, and the backyard

was surrounded by a tall black wooden fence approximately six to seven feet high. I strongly believe the

person(s) responsible for lighting the fire parked their vehicle on Cedar Street and cut through a backyard adjacent to the backyard of the Chavarie home. Climbing the fence and once in the backyard, any movement going to the house would have been undetected, since it was very dark in that backyard at night.

 

Mere minutes after the fire started and the house was well engulfed, neighbors got involved and

started to gather outside the residence. A red truck drove by, and the man driving the vehicle stopped to talk to Aldérice Belliveau and said he had beer in his truck and didn’t want to stick around since the police would be on their way. I find this red truck very unusual, kind of makes you think twice about why the driver thought police would be concerned about possible beer hidden in his truck with a house fully engulfed in flames. I think the police would have been much busier with other things going on than to notice this man in the red truck. And for him not wanting to get outside and perhaps help makes me suspicious. Was he the actual arsonist who made his way back to his red truck parked on Cedar Street and was he driving past the

house he had just lit on fire to see if what he had done had actually accomplished what was intended?

​

No inquiries were made by the police about this man in the red truck. Until this day, nothing has been done about trying to speak with this man. He very well could have been an innocent passing motorist, but would it not be prudent to check further and find out who this man is (if still alive)?

 

With the trail of flammable liquid poured, maybe taking a minute to do at most, it was lit as the

arsonist(s) left the back door. The high concentration of flammable liquid at the front entrance makes it

clear as day to me and indicates that this was not Marc’s doing. Because if this would have been Marc,

he would have knowingly been blocking Suzanne’s only exit from the house and leaving her no choice

but to go through the fire to get out. Marc and Suzanne’s bedroom was in the back of the house off the

living room which, as mentioned previously, was adjacent to the front entrance.

 

Marc was not homicidal, plain and simple. He would have known he would have been the first person

investigated if he lit the fire and survived. I believe Marc was sleeping in his favorite chair in the living

room when the fire was started, because Marc sometimes fell asleep if he had a few too many drinks (just like it happens with a lot of people). I am convinced Marc was startled awake with the fire raging and frantically tried to put it out with the pot that was found on the floor in front of the kitchen sink, with the water tap running by the time firefighters arrived and witnessed the faucet still engaged.

 

The fire was too fast and too involved to do anything and I believe that’s when he went to get Suzanne

to get her out. Marc walked through the fire not once, not twice but three times by the time he had

Suzanne in his arms and carried her out towards the kitchen.

 

Mr. Martin, during his review, said “Suicide requires two key components, self-infliction and intention.

Based on the material that I have reviewed, I cannot see either of these components in this case”. Even

less so for homicide, that sort of thing was just not in Marc’s DNA at all.

 

Mr. Martin also brought up many more valid points, which are more indications that Marc had nothing

to do with this fire. That night, Marc and Suzanne and their guests made concrete plans to go to the cottage in Bouctouche the following day. Who makes detailed concrete plans for the following day in a chipper good mood if one does not expect to survive that night and be alive the next day? Marc’s buddy would pick him up at 11am and they would drive up together at the cottage with Angèle, and Suzanne would go later that afternoon after her friend finished work. The guests left at around 1:30am that evening/early morning.

 

By this time, Marc was hungry and placed an order for donairs from Greco. He ordered three donairs, which Mr. Martin surmised that two were for Marc and one was for Suzanne. She told police that she did not get up to eat because she was tired and stayed in bed. So Marc ate the donairs and as Mr. Martin said “It has been my experience that someone who is intending to kill another person does not normally make sure they have something to eat first. I would also be of the opinion that if Marc had decided to kill himself and his family, he would not have an appetite just before he commits the act. The ordering of the food speaks volumes about the mindset of Marc at the time.” He was hungry and thinking about food, not planning a fire. And what about if Suzanne had gotten up to eat? What about Marc’s supposed plan to set the fire? Makes zero sense and there was no such plan because he did not have any such intention.

 

The fact that no flammable container was found inside or outside the residence is also significant if the

theory was that Marc was responsible. More often than not, metal or plastic will melt but will not disappear entirely or evaporate. Some kind of residue would have been found inside if any type of plastic or metal container had burnt in the fire. None of that was found. I believe the person(s) responsible brought in the containers and brought them back out with them when they left.

 

Another few vital points that Mr. Martin made were in relation to the scene itself. He is a certified

expert witness with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court on crime scene analysis, so he took a great interest

in how the investigation was undertaken. He said that one of the investigators “appears to play a major role in this investigation, and I am of the opinion that, on occasion, he will overstep the limits of his qualifications."

 

This investigator stated during the inquest that he examined the infant’s nostrils and they were filled with

soot as far back as could be seen with a flashlight. This investigator also stated that his observations led him to believe that the baby died of asphyxiation as there was no pink eyes and the eyes were sunk back in

the head. So clearly the investigator touched and manipulated Angèle.

 

Mr. Martin said “I have some major issues with this officer’s behaviour. Unless he is checking

this child for signs of life, he should not be touching or examining the child in any way. He is not qualified to examine the deceased child and he is certainly not qualified to make a finding of manner or

cause of death. If he went near the infant and made his observations by manipulating or touching in any

way, he could have altered the scene. Plus, he was wrong. The infant died as the result of smoke

inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning, not asphyxiation.”

 

Mr. Martin went further, “In my opinion, the investigator certainly went beyond his areas of responsibility

and expertise at this scene.” Another example of venturing beyond his areas of responsibility at the fire scene is the following: “In one of the reports, it states in regard to the back door, the door appears to have been shut at the time of the fire due to the extent of the depth of alligatoring and stayed shut during the main course of the fire. This again goes beyond his areas of responsibility. He has concluded a definitive finding before it could be examined and analyzed by an officer who was qualified to do so.”

 

Then in bold letters, he writes “Early definitive findings in any death investigation are very dangerous

territory. Unqualified statements of findings such as this can set the tone and the mindset for other

officers involved in the investigation to follow.”

 

This is part of the tunnel vision and confirmation bias that I mentioned from the beginning, along with

assumptions and uncorroborated evidence about Marc being responsible.

 

Mr. Martin also mentions that only “one smoke detector was found in the house and was presumed to

have been on the wall or ceiling close to the baby’s room. No other smoke detectors were located.

During two separate searches of the residence, no accelerant container was located. The perimeter of

the residence was searched with a police dog and no accelerant containers were located in case one was

tossed or thrown from the area of the residence.” Then, interestingly, Mr. Martin points out “the owner of the

house had told investigators (that can be found in the public police report) that 5 smoke detectors were in the residence and police only found one. The chances of a smoke detector being completely consumed by fire to the point that it is nonexistent does happen, but for four smoke detectors to all be completely consumed by a fire is highly unlikely.” He seemed baffled by that statement to police and he also mentioned something else in the police report as a bit odd, where the owner stated to police he had no keys to the house. That a landlord would not have a key for the property that they are renting could be seen as strange.

 

Mr. Martin also notes that during the inquest, the investigator testified that the pathologist who conducted

Marc’s autopsy (Dr. MacKay) said that Marc’s liver was enlarged and therefore he probably had a drinking problem. In open court during the inquest, the investigator said that Dr. MacKay stated “if the fire didn’t kill him, the liver probably would have.” How shocking of a statement is that to make? It is incomprehensible how someone could utter such a sentence in a formal inquest proceedings. Never mind the insensitive nature of what he said but how unnecessary and unprofessional. I was there at the inquest, I was 16 years old and I heard it all with my own ears.

 

As a matter of fact, Mr. Martin is not overly surprised with the finding that the liver was enlarged because he states “excess heat from a fire will also cause some internal organs to swell.”

 

So this business about an enlarged liver means what exactly? To further smear and demonize Marc with innuendo that is quite possibly inaccurate and gives nothing of value to the investigation or the fire itself. Why even utter such a line after someone has already met their demise in such a brutal and awful manner as being burned alive? Why would Marc's liver be of such importance and a line of questioning during the inquest?

 

The investigator was asked the question "Did he (Dr. MacKay) also indicate anything to you about Marc Caissie's liver that was of any importance?" After the investigator gave his snide and repulsive remark, he was then asked "The liver is the part of the body that's affected by alcohol?", to which the investigator replied "Yes it is." Almost immediately, Chief Coroner John Evans at that point - on page 169 of the Inquest Document - said "I think we can leave this witness to deal with what he knows."

 

Suzanne’s diary is another point of contention with Mr. Martin, who questions the methods used to

seize and use it at the inquest, along with Suzanne’s purse and contents, personal papers from a top

drawer in the master bedroom, a photo album and insurance papers. Was a Warrant to Search or a

General Warrant to Search a suspected crime scene ever undertaken? There was no mention or even

suggestion that any such warrants were even contemplated and as a result, as Mr. Martin says “I am of

the opinion that this was a major oversight on the part of the police, with this entire house being a crime

scene. The police had a remedy for this situation, which was to obtain a warrant. They chose not to, and

therefore I do not believe the personal items that were seized and removed from the house were taken

legally.”

 

Mr. Martin also states the fact that there was no mention of mesh screens being used to filter

out the debris on the kitchen counter and floor, which is pretty standard for fire investigations. It’s safe to say the original police investigation did not impress him at all. The report does go on to point out other problems and issues with the investigation and it's clear to me and confirms my belief that the original police investigation was royally screwed up from the get go.

 

In conclusion, Mr. Martin clearly states at the end of his report “This case was not properly

investigated, and it certainly was not fully investigated or completed.”

​

 

CODIAC RCMP / MAJOR CRIMES OF SOUTHEAST NEW BRUNSWICK

 

This journey for justice has been a 10 year nightmare to get any action or movement with this case from the police. I began a more concerted effort starting in Winter/Spring 2011-2012 with Const. Gary Clements, who was one of the first patrolmen at the scene of the fire that night and who had heroically gone inside the burning house to retrieve Suzanne and attempt to also save Marc. He had been promoted as an investigator by the time I met with him first in 2000 and then again in 2007 (I met with him briefly during those two occasions for a status update on the case), then I began regular discussions with him starting in Winter/Spring 2011 - 2012. We discussed the case file quite a bit and I shared with him as much information as I could and he was ready to do something to move the case along after I shared my suspicions with him.

 

Tragically, his teenage son died in an ATV accident shortly after our discussions and he retired from the police force. I had to wait close to a year to start fresh with another investigator named Const. Jim

MacPherson, who had planned to conduct something significant, and final preparations were done on

the afternoon of June 4, 2014. As fate would have it, that very night and to everyone’s horror, only hours later, the Moncton police shootings occurred and that put an end to any movement for a long time.

 

Const. Jim MacPherson was then transferred to Sussex, NB and I was again waiting to make contact with

new investigators and to start the process with them all over again. During this time, my brother Marc’s file moved from Codiac RCMP and it went to Major Crimes of Southeast NB, and I was put in touch with Sgt. Jean “Chico” Belliveau, Const. Nicholas Potvin and Const. Joel Arsenault, who met with me and we discussed the case over the span of a year or two. Time has a way of dragging on in these matters it seems.

 

Finally in December 2018, movement happened and they questioned a few people. Shortly after, Sgt.

Belliveau retired, Const. Potvin and Const. Arsenault were promoted, and I was again put in touch a year later with another investigator, Sgt. Patrick Tardif.

 

The investigation is still ongoing and they cannot and will not divulge anything to the media or public as

it pertains to their investigation. All they will say is, the case is still “under investigation”.

​

​

MY PERSONAL OPINION

 

I strongly believe I know who is ultimately responsible for this fire. For obvious legal reasons, I cannot

and will not divulge any name. I also would not want to jeopardize the current police investigation, so I

am tight lipped and will only say this individual knows who they are; they have been interviewed,

questioned and asked to make a formal statement.

 

This individual was also asked if they would take a polygraph, and this person was initially cooperative during the first police interaction in December 2018 and agreed to take the polygraph. I knew somehow and someway this individual would find a way to back out of it. Since, this individual has done a complete 180 and is refusing to cooperate or even answer questions. In fact, a few of the investigators told me this person got so over-the-top defensive and aggressive, displaying attitude with them that it makes one wonder why someone who’s claiming to be 100% innocent would exhibit such strange behavior. That is suspicious not only to me but to investigators as well.

 

You would think that during any interaction with the police, if innocent as claimed, one would remain polite, non-confrontational and eager to cooperate and clear their name and not accuse the police of harassment. But in this case, with this individual, things kind of went off the rails.

 

I was never convinced the polygraph would happen because I know this individual is scared of what the

polygraph might reveal. I was subsequently told by another individual that a lawyer had given the

person to be polygraphed some advice not to take the polygraph based on “the fact that too much time

had elapsed between the event and now”.

 

When I heard this dubious and ridiculous justification for not taking the polygraph, based on “too much

time had elapsed”, I was incredulous. Since when does the truth expire with time? First time I hear that

the truth has an expiration date. Throughout my life, I always believed that the truth is always the truth;

whether in days, weeks, months, years (in this case 33 years); the truth does not change or waiver. Yes or no answers, it's that simple.

 

In my mind, if one is 100% innocent, you will do what it takes to clear your name from any suspicion. If

one has nothing to hide and claims total innocence, you take the polygraph and show you are not afraid

to take it. The police know people are nervous to be strapped into a chair to take such a test; there’s a baseline that takes that nervousness and anxiousness into account when conducting it. I have since spoken to a few lawyers about the polygraph question and they all told me “I leave it up to my client; if they claim they are 100% innocent with nothing to hide and they want suspicion to go away, I tell them to take it.”

 

Of course some lawyers will say the opposite, as is the case with this individual. What this refusal has

done for me is only heighten my suspicions that they are ultimately responsible (with perhaps another

person or two involved as well).

 

If I was to quantify my suspicion based on a number of certainty, I would say I am 95% sure. Based on what I know, which is a lot as it relates to this case, I can only see any other possible or probable theory that may exist at 5% and I will keep believing this until this individual takes the polygraph once and for all so that we know if this person is really innocent or being deceitful in their YES or NO answers during the test. So many inconsistencies and so many coincidences exist for this one person as it relates to the fire. I no longer subscribe to these all being chance events. One coincidence may be one thing, but when you start counting numerous, it changes the equation.

 

A lot of people may think “what’s the point after 33 years, what will it give me, etc?” Unless one walks in

someone else’s shoes, they will never know what it’s like. It never goes away; there’s no closure, no answers and the mystery haunts me. It’s caused me to have mental health issues since the time it happened and it’s not too pleasant to deal with. My brother and his family were burnt alive and I’m just supposed to sit back and take that? I don’t think so, and I will give them a voice to be heard.

 

A lot is said these days about mental health and speaking out. This fire that claimed the lives of my brother and his family have caused mental health issues for me as a result. Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, PTSD, paranoia (“are they going to come after me or my parents next?” was my thinking at the time), feelings of deep personal anguish, anger, frustration, stress, bitterness, resentment…the list goes on and on. I am not looking for any pity party; those are a waste of time and energy. I am only stating facts and being truthful to myself and to anyone who can relate to such devastation, pain and trauma.

​

I’ve had countless sleepless nights, nightmares that are worst than most scary movies, dark thoughts and feelings, despair and hopelessness that have consumed me for long stretches of time and an emptiness in my heart like the deepest chasms found on earth. The sole reason I bring this up? I just want this person / these people to know (if accomplices were involved which I believe there were), their actions have had a lasting devastating consequence. I can only speak for myself of the impact this has had on me, imagine my mother having to bury a 2nd son (after my brother Pierre drowned in an accident 2 years prior) and also having to bury the daughter she never had (Suzanne) and also losing her only granddaughter that lit up her world briefly for 5 months.

 

For this person or people (if accomplices are involved), for them it may be a one off/one time event with unintended consequences (EX: “Shit it wasn’t supposed to go down like that with any loss of life"), but for me and my parents (father is now deceased) it’s been a life long struggle to accept our reality.

 

Armchair psychologists or psychiatrists who sit there and judge or gossip or like spreading rumors are

people I want no part of, because toxic people like that only serve themselves and their perceived

heightened sense of righteousness and superiority. Can they really relate if they haven't lived it?

 

I want justice; I want answers; I want the truth and accountability. I also want my brother Marc to be

vindicated and exonerated from any responsibility in this fire, when the stigma and perception was introduced and perpetrated 33 years ago with the wild police theory that had zero evidence to back it up and was put out there for public consumption.

 

My brother Marc was a good hearted guy, caring, loving and loyal. Suzanne was the sister I never had

and she was an amazing person whom I loved and cared for deeply. My niece/goddaughter Angèle brought so much happiness and love during her short 5 months on this earth. She was a breath of fresh air and represented hope, after my brother Pierre’s passing. She was our pride and joy.

 

If anyone knows anything, please do the right thing. Speak up, call out, send an e-mail...do something. We can all choose to bury our heads in the sand like an ostrich, but if it was your son or daughter, brother or sister, father or mother, cousin or friend, wouldn’t you want someone to come forward who could help solve a case that haunts and traumatizes you?

 

The community should be fully aware that someone who is responsible for this arson that claimed

the lives of three people is still out there. Police are obviously aware of this person and all the circumstances and they continue to look into it. I find it disconcerting to know that some people still do get away with such crimes, and even yet, some people who know things will sit on that information and do nothing and let these people get away with things so devastating and cruel. It's not about being a "rat" or "squealing", it's about doing the right thing, especially if you know that if the roles were reversed and you had a loved one who was a victim of a crime or Cold Case, you would also be looking for and wanting help and answers.

​

We all have choices to make in life and I, for one, decided to draw a line in the sand. Those with a

conscience would or should do the right thing, but sadly not everyone has a conscience. And to “ask for

forgiveness” from a higher power (if one has such beliefs) and then think they are absolved from all

responsibility, while the families of victims languish with immeasurable pain and heartache of not knowing the truth or having any answers about what happened...well I must say I would hate to be in those shoes because a “Final Judgement” does await us all and I believe salvation is not so easily acquired if we do not repent and make amends to those we have hurt.

 

We will all be judged one day and if someone is truly concerned for the salvation of their soul, they

should come forward. I would not hate this individual or judge them, and in fact I would respect them even more for coming forward.

 

I wish I could say more that would fill in the blanks and give proper context to this case, but for the

integrity of the ongoing investigation I cannot divulge more information at this time and I will refrain

from doing so. Maybe one day I will write a book with all the relevant details and facts as they exist, and

I would be able to share all the pertinent information required that would paint a much clearer picture.

 

My wish is for this individual, whom I believe to be responsible, to do the right thing.

 

 

If you have any information, please call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477 or Anonymous Tips can be given online at https://crimenb.ca

 

Anyone with information can also call CODIAC RCMP at (506) 857-2400.