JoAnn Parks

 

I came across this case when I was reading a book called “Burned: A Story of Murder and the Crime that Wasn't” by Edward Humes. Much like the book I read recently on the murder of Roger “Scott” Dunn, the case did not end when the book did. In the latter case there had been a prosecution without a body. The book was published in 2005 and in 2012 Scott Dunn's body was finally found. Humes' book was the story of a woman who was convicted of starting a fire that killed her three children. This is one of those cases in which I was glad I read the book to know more of the story because while researching the case online there was not as much information as was provided by the book. Burned was published in 2019 and argued that JoAnn Parks had been wrongly convicted of murder. The book very much dove into the investigation that was later taken over by the California Innocent Project (CIP) as well as what had been discovered about the nature of fire since the “crime” had occurred in 1989.

I was thankful that I had read Humes' book, not only because it was very informative but also because once I sat down to do my research nearly all of it surrounded more recent events in the case. In 1993 JoAnn Parks received a sentence of life without parole after being convicted on three counts of first degree murder. Prosecutors argued, obviously successfully (which we will be getting into) that she had purposely set a fire that had claimed the lives of her three children. Over nearly thirty years there were many filings and arguments looking to have at the very least a new trial and at the very most, to have her exonerated completely. All of the court proceedings failed. But, then in 2020 Governor Gavin Newson commuted JoAnn's sentence which made her immediately eligible for parole. It was another nine months but in January of 2021 she was released from prison. When you research the case however it is a bit misleading. Most everything says that she was exonerated, wrongly convicted or a combination of these things. In reality she was not exonerated, nor as of August of 2022 has it legally been found that she was wrongly convicted. That is not to say that I agree with these rulings, I am just stating the facts. In fact, in August of 2021, after her release the previous January the courts ruled once again. CIP was specifically asking for her to be officially exonerated but the courts basically said that it all still came down to a “battle of the experts” and refused to grant the motion. What all of this means is that it is going to be up to you to decide what you think. As always I will give you the information that I have gathered through my research. I have already expressed a bit of my feelings but as usual you will also hear more of what I believe.

In the early morning hours of April 9, 1989 JoAnn Parks ran to the home of her neighbors, Bob and Shirley Robinson, in Bell California (now basically a suburb of Los Angeles) and banged on the door. They did not need her to tell them why she was there because as soon as they opened the door they saw flames coming from the newly converted apartment the family had moved into just a week earlier. JoAnn informed the Robinson's that her three children, four year old Ronald Jr, two year old RoAnn and one year old Jessica, were still inside. While Shirley first called the authorities she then went out to stay with JoAnn and Bob ran to the burning home. He entered the home and while it seemed as if he was gone for quite some time, he did not get very far and nearly collapsed from the smoke himself. Another neighbor had been walking home when he noticed the flames and had grabbed a nearby garden hose to try to help put it out while waiting for firefighters to arrive. Both this neighbor and Bob Robinson, along with at least a few police officers who reached the scene first would say that they could hear the children screaming during this time.

One of the officers that reported this was not permitted to testify in JoAnn's 1993 trial because prosecutors would say that his recollections had changed over time and they claimed he was unreliable. Reality is that is that his core issues and testimony were consistent not only with the evidence, but with other testimony. The “unreliable” part was that the officer later seemingly made an effort to sound as if he had made more efforts than he actually did to save the children. Let me start with saying that while I do believe he made what could have been a fatal mistake (I will get into this in a bit) in his efforts, that he did do all that he could or at least knew to do to save the children. I believe his story later likely changed more out of guilt. The fact that three children, who were alive when he arrived and were not saved can weigh heavily on someone. And, the officer was not the only one to make such claims. JoAnn Parks would do the same in a later interview apparently after her husband made a comment, for others to hear, all but blaming her for their children dying. In another interview she too apparently made it seem she had done more to reach her children. But, while the prosecutors took these statements deliberate lies and used them against JoAnn and the officer, I honestly do not see them this way. The prosecutor gained leverage by taking this position but again, we will get into that in just a bit.

Authorities went inside the home once the fire was out. RoAnn and Jessica were found in their room and while Robbie was also found in his room, he was found in his closet. The home was all but destroyed either by the fire itself or by the firefighters who went through it after looking for hot spots. A fire investigation is much different than other crimes scenes and investigations. Yes, sometimes evidence is destroyed or moved, sometimes on purpose (usually maliciously) or by accident in other crimes but when it comes to fires almost ALL evidence is affected. First, the fire itself can destroy everything it touches. That obviously depends on a lot of things. If something is not destroyed by the fire, it could be damaged or destroyed by the water used to put the fire out. Then firefighters comb through the structure with pick axes where they dig through debris, move things around and often throw large flammable and damaged items outside of the structure itself to prevent the fire from reigniting. So, when investigators go in to see where a fire may have started or why they may not see the entire picture.

I will use a good example of this in this particular case. It was said that the Parkses had an “old style” (remember they said this in 1989... so it was old for that time) television. The television had been obviously damaged. The question over the years would be whether the damage the television suffered came from the fact that it was the source of the fire, or damaged by the fire itself. It is unclear if the television was available to be examined to investigators. Two investigations were done in this case. The first determined that the fire was an accident and electrical in nature. Whether the television was examined is unclear. What we do know is that a second investigation was made and in that case we know the television was not examined. There were indications that it was somehow available, whether still in the rubble in or outside the home, but that the investigator chose not to examine it. That being said only a trained investigator would likely be able to tell the difference between knowing if the television was the source of the fire or damaged BECAUSE of the fire. Then again right around the time of this fire in 1989 and into the next few years some investigators were starting to learn that everything they had been taught about arson investigation may have been wrong.

For decades those investigating fires were told what to look for to determine how the fire started, including knowing the signs of where the fire started and knowing when an accelerant is being used. Around the time of the fire at the Parkses home things were starting to change. But, let me say that it was not, and still apparently is not an easy change or one that everyone accepts willingly. And, as we know and have seen so often when it comes to court battles it seems that either side is capable of finding an “expert” that will testify for their side. This case has often been argued by the court in appeals to be “a battle of the experts” and sadly this seems to be why nothing has really changed. A seasoned and well respected arson investigator by the name of John Lentini was one of the first to discover that everything he had been taught about fire had been wrong.

Lentini was one of many investigators who had the opportunity to examine an area after a wildfire had gone through the area. The significance in this was that they knew the fire had technically started some distance away from the structures that they looked at. This meant they knew the fire had not started with an accelerant, nor had their been an electrical fire. The other advantage that these investigators had was that the fires had been allowed basically to burn out themselves so there was not the typical water damage, nor were firefighters going through these structures and moving things around. What they did know was that something called “flashover” had occurred. Flashover happens when oxygen comes into an area of a fire and will basically engulf a room in flames. It does not mean that the entire room technically catches fire at that time, but it does mean that flames have touch basically every section of the room. It will and generally does spread naturally but some items in an area when there is flashover can immediately catch fire also. Lentini and his fellow investigators were surprised to see things like “V” patterns in the structures they looked at after the wildfire. They had been taught that these patterns were classic signs of an accelerant being used and the origin of the fire. They absolutely knew this was not the case here. They also absolutely had to know that flashover had occurred in these structures. As windows would have cracked and/or busted out oxygen would have entered the structure and “fed” the fire.

Learning these things Lentini basically began a whole new level of research when it came to fires. Not long later Lentini was called into another case of a house fire where a man was accused of setting the fire that killed several members of his family. The initial investigators had ruled that it was arson and since the man was the only survivor in the home the prosecutors decided he had started the fire. So, Lentini seemingly found a home just a few doors down that was empty and laid out the exact same way. He was somehow able to obtain the rights and the ability to use this home as a “test” home. It was said to have been furnished similarly to the man's home and a fire WAS set. Of course in this instance they would have known where it was set and how. When it was all said and done once again Lentini was able to prove that the same marks in the original fire were found in the demo fire, showing that marks in the original fire that had been pointed to as signs of arson were not true.

Lentini made it his mission to re-evaluate fires and basically become a “new” fire expert. He eventually started working with the CIP and looking into old cases. Many who had highly respected Lentini were now at odds with him and despite his proof, they disagreed with his findings. Many of the “old school” investigators vehemently disagreed with Lentini, as well as prosecutors. One has to ask if this stubbornness to accept the now proven science behind fires was attributed to simple denial or the fact that they knew that every single case that involved arson would be under review. How many innocent people had been sent to prison, or even received a death penalty. These questions came about fiercely both before and after the 2004 execution of Cameron “Todd” Willingham in Texas who was sentenced to death for starting a fire that killed his children. Many believe to this day that he was wrongly convicted, let alone executed. Many prosecutors believe cases like these are hills worth dying on.

So, as I stated earlier, the initial investigation into the fire at the Parkses home was ruled accidental. In fact, neither JoAnn or her husband, Ronald, were not aware that a few short days later the investigation was opened again or that nearly three years later it was still being conducted. I do not want to say that they had moved on, but I guess that is what they did. They had moved away and were both working and outwardly doing well it seems. So why was there another investigation done?

A few days after the fire a woman by the name of Kathy Dodge contacted authorities in Bell. Dodge had been a neighbor of the Parkses in late 1988. Earlier that year, prior to Dodge meeting the family, the Parks family had their first home fire. That fire had been ruled accidental and electrical and there was ample proof of this. In fact, there were multiple witnesses that there were electrical problems in the house while the Parks family were renting and a day or so before the actual fire the fire department had come in and had the electrical turned off on the house saying there was a hazard and the landlord needed to speak to an electrician. It had been said that if more than one appliance ran the breakers would trip. The following day however, while Ron was at a park with the two older children JoAnn apparently turned the breakers back on in the home saying they needed it for whatever reason. She then left with their youngest child, Jessica and met the rest of the family at the park for a picnic. While they were gone the fire started and the family lost everything. However, unlike the second fire, no one lost their life. The family did not have insurance and there was no indication that they had any financial motive to have started the fire. After this fire they had moved to a nicer area and this is where they met Kathy Dodge.

By most accounts the family was doing well there, maybe better than they had at any point in time before. JoAnn became friends with Kathy Dodge, for a while at least. At some point the two women had a falling out. Kathy accused JoAnn of stealing some sort of cashier's check that she had received. Kathy even called the police who could not prove that JoAnn did anything at all. It was alleged that while Kathy never found the cashier's check she was able to have one re-issued, that is if it was missing at all. You may understand in a bit why I have said this. Soon after this argument Ron Parks was laid off from his job and soon the family was homeless again. Kathy told authorities that before the Parkses left that she and JoAnn had made up but whether JoAnn had agreed with that seemed a bit unclear for me. There was some indication that Kathy may have stated that they had made amends so that she did not seem to be a bitter person because the things she told authorities were pretty damaging. I want to take sections of what she said and examine them but note that when she told them to authorities they not only seemed to take them at face value and they spread them to other investigators.

Kathy stated that JoAnn had made comments that if Jessica had died in the previous fire that the couple would have gotten quite a bit of money. First, no one was in the home when the home caught fire, let alone baby Jessica. Secondly, there was absolutely no evidence that the Parkses had any kind of life insurance on any of their children at any point including at the time of either fire. In fact, there was no evidence they had any sort of renters insurance during either fire. The couple had filed a lawsuit after the first fire against the landlords but it was later dropped after the second fire occurred. Lastly, while some of the statements made by Kathy were said to be corroborated by a few other people, from my understanding that was not completely true. I was led to believe that those who had said they had heard these statements also would later say that they never heard them from either JoAnn or Ron Parks, but from Kathy herself saying that they had been said.

Kathy told authorities that JoAnn gave the children cough medicine on a regular basis so that they would sleep throughout the night. Autopsies were done on the bodies of the children and it was determined that no cough syrup was found. At some point Ron's ex-wife was interviewed and she stated to authorities that while they had been together Ron had given cough syrup to their son (I have no idea what came of this child but it does appear that his name too was Ron, odd, I know). This of course does not mean that Ron, who was much older than JoAnn had not “trained” her to do the same with their children but again, nothing was present apparently during the autopsies.

These were the main things that Kathy Dodge would allege and as I said were passed on to investigators. She would add things as well as seemingly take things away from statements throughout the investigation. In the end when JoAnn was put on trial in 1993 Kathy Dodge was on the witness list but the prosecutors decided not to call her. Between her inconsistent statements, her criminal history and some other things apparently they felt she was too unreliable. But, it was her statements to authorities in the beginning that re-opened the investigation into the fire that had already been ruled accidental.

The CIP would delve into this a lot and talk about how bias came into the picture. In fact, at some later point they would present to the court a witness who discussed how not only fire investigations had changed over the years but also how allowing fire investigators to have unrelated information presented them with a bias opinion before ever going inside a structure. The fire investigator who went into the home the second time, after Kathy Dodge's statements to authorities, not only knew about these statements but he also knew that he had been the investigator at the previous fire, one that he ruled accidental. I will be the first to admit that for a family to have two fires within two years would be unusual but I also do not think that especially this investigator should have taken that into consideration since he himself ruled the first one an accident. I say this because this particular investigator, even when faced with the science and research discovered by Lentini and others, refused to admit he could have been wrong in the case of the second fire. And yet, while he did not go back and officially change the ruling on the first fire that he investigated involving the family, he did indicate that he may have believed it too was set. In fact, years later, after CIP was involved in the case and talked to the prosecutor about looking the case over they found an “expert” who not only agreed with the ruling on the second fire but in his report repeatedly called JoAnn a “serial arsonist.”

So the second investigation began after Kathy Dodge had made her call and as I stated the investigator knew the allegations that were made. This was done before any toxicology could have returned to prove there was not cough syrup in the children's bodies. It was later said that no only did he know these things, that he had discussed them with another before going inside. Once inside not only did he determine that this was not an act of accident but of arson, he stated there were two points of origin. One was in the front room around the cord of the television set and the other was in the room where the girls slept. Later he would revise a little saying that the cords in the front room had “nicks” in them and he believed that while it was attempted to start a fire her that it had not taken off. He would be asked about his examination of the television as well as if he could absolutely determine where these “nicks” came from. The answer to the first question was that he had not examined the television and despite any answer he may have given there is no way he could have known for certain that the “nicks” came from someone tampering with the wire. They could have just as easily come from the axes used by firefighters. The investigator also made the claim that four year old Ronnie had been barricaded in his closet indicating that someone had put him there before the fire. He would claim that a laundry basket had been put in front of the closet. The said laundry basket was plastic and it was unclear whether it had mostly melted away or if it had completely melted away. There was a mark near the door where the investigator claimed the basket must have been at some point during the fire. The problem was too that no one could say for certain if when investigators went into the home after the fire if the closet door was open or closed. When he left the home the investigator had alleged believed that both Ron and JoAnn were guilty of starting, or at least attempting to start, the fire.

I want to stop here for a moment and go over these theories of the investigator. He knew going into the home that Ron Parks had some electrical experience; he also knew that their last fire had been ruled accidental due to a circuit overload to and extension cord. In addition to this he also knew that when the fire started Ron was at work. His working theory was that Ron had set up the wires in the front room to basically be a delayed detonator. When that apparently failed he believed that JoAnn had set a fire in the girls' room. He also believed that at least one of them had barricaded Ronnie in his closet. He was also armed with all of the stories that Kathy Dodge had told. In the end since no one could prove that Ron had anything to do with the fire and JoAnn was the only parent home when it occurred prosecutors eventually filed charges against her and not Ron.

While we all know that a prosecutor does not have to present the court with a motive, we also know that juries like to have them. Whether they present a motive or not there has to be a reason and the evidence has to make that reason make some sort of sense to someone at least, even if it is only to the perpetrator of a crime. Financial motive was ruled out. Not only did the family not have insurance to protect their belongings (despite having a previous fire), there was no evidence of insurance on the children. So it appears that the alleged motive became simply wanting to be rid of the children. But, I take issue with this too. First, once again, there was no evidence that there was any kind of cough syrup or any other sort of drug or chemical in the bodies of the children that would have allowed them to maybe sleep more heavily. If we go by the investigators theory, of which the prosecutor based their theory upon, then only one of the three children were “barricaded” and a second fire was started in the room where the other two children slept. This makes little sense not to mention that Kathy Dodge was the ONLY person who indicated that JoAnn was not a good mother or made particular comments about her children and she was so discredited that the prosecutor never ever called her to the stand to testify. I should say that there were a few others who made the claims about JoAnn's parenting but in the end they admitted that they heard these things from Kathy Dodge and had not seen or heard anything directly from JoAnn. And yet still these allegations from Dodge were used as first the basis to come to decisions in the case and later based in the theory made by the prosecutor.

As I stated earlier the prosecutor also chose not to allow one of the officers that was first on the scene to testify, claiming that his story had changed. I already spoke about why I believe this was the case and I touched on the fact that his main allegations or report was not only substantiated by others, but very important. Everyone agrees that when the officer arrived at the scene the children were alive and could be heard. There was desperation all around to reach them. The officer went around to the back of the home where their windows were. He reported that the fire had not yet fully engulfed at least the girls' bedroom. However, this is when he likely made a fatal mistake. In his effort to reach the children he began breaking the window. After, or during that effort, “flashover” occurred and not only all but blew the officer back from the window, it overtook the room. There were witnesses to this who saw the officer being pushed back. The significance in this is the fact that Lentini had discovered that “flashover” had the ability to create patterns in which until that point they had been told were signs of arson. Whether the second investigator refused to believe “flashover” occurred or simply dismissed the fact that it had the ability to make these patterns is unclear. But this same investigator argued that a second fire was started in the girls' bedroom and it seems to contradict the other information given. But, because the prosecutor did not call the officer to the stand that information was not given to the jury.

JoAnn's attorney had his work cut out for him. In the process he actually upset one of his main witnesses. Lentini testified about the new progress made in fire investigations. It was not widespread by that time in 1993 so there was some push back from other investigators. This would be the beginning of what many consider the case becoming a “battle of the experts.” Lentini was upset because his core belief was that the fire was not arson but electrical in nature. And, while I understand him being upset with the defense attorney there is also a part of me that understood what the defense was doing. Obviously it would be best to basically stick to one theory, especially if you are a prosecutor. However, when it comes to defense attorney's their job is to create holes in the prosecution theory and show the jury there is reasonable doubt. While yes, the defense was arguing that JoAnn had not set the fire that killed her children, they also knew that if the jury believed it was arson they could sentence her to death and he wanted to prevent that also. The defense put Ron Parks on the stand. He was not a likable guy anyways and he proved so in front of the jury. The defense theory was that if the jury believed the investigators that the fire was set and that there had been a failed attempt in the living room, and Ron Parks had electrical experience that they would not believe she planned to set the fire alone. Ron was not charged with anything so the defense believed if the jury believed Ron was also involved they would spare JoAnn the death penalty believing he also was involved and faced nothing. They may have actually right in that aspect. Ron made some comments on the stand that did not sit well with some people, including JoAnn. First, he came off as very distant but when he talked about his children he spoke as if he never thought of them or about their lives, let alone their deaths. He actually referred to his children as “spilt milk.”

The defense was not sure until the end whether Kathy Dodge was going to testify, and in turn were unsure whether they would put JoAnn on the stand. They felt as if Dodge testified JoAnn would absolutely have to. They would confront her with Dodge's allegations and let the jury see her for who she was, but putting a defendant on the stand is always risky because you never know what the prosecutor has in store for them. In the end since Dodge did not testify, neither did JoAnn and the defense felt that for the jury it would come down to which side of experts they believed. They were correct in many aspects but in this area they were wrong.

Throughout the fire, and even on into the night JoAnn's neighbor, Shirley Robinson stayed practically next to her. While there were some allegations by people who either saw JoAnn from a distance or had sporadic contact with her throughout that time that they found her behavior or emotions odd, Shirley Robinson disagreed. However, Shirley's observations did not fit into the prosecution narrative. During the time of the fire one investigator kept going over to the two women and was assuring JoAnn that her children were first, “going to be” and then later were okay. In fact, after knowing that the children did not survive the investigator still convinced JoAnn of this and also convinced her to go to the police station for an interview. On the surface this interaction seemed like nothing in the realm of the investigation. It was not something the defense was concerned about and it is likely the prosecution did not give it a second thought themselves. It was at the police station that JoAnn would be informed about the fate of her children and it was where Ron and JoAnn first had contact after the fire. Again, despite other reports, from mainly officials, Shirley Robinson maintained that JoAnn was devastated by this news, and later her husband's reaction. After the verdict in the case jurors would stun the defense when they announced that they came to their decision that JoAnn was guilty based on the fact that she left the scene of the fire without physically seeing her children. It was their belief that a mother would not have left the scene without knowing for certain where and how her children were. But, as I stated earlier, she was not given the death penalty. Her sentence for three counts of first degree murder was life in prison without the possibility of parole.

CIP (California Innocence Project) were asked to get involved a few times in the next several years. At least once they had denied looking into the case. Eventually they did take the case and began diving into fire investigations. They even had an “arson review panel” look over the case and they determined not only one fire began and that was in the front room but also that there was absolutely no evidence that something was barricading the closet door in Ronnie Jr.'s room. CIP went to the prosecutors with their case and were hoping that they would agree that fire investigation had changed and they would admit and see that an injustice was done. In fact, according to CIP attorney's the prosecutor even gave that impression at least initially. In fairness, it is the prosecutors job to look into the case and determine the accuracy of what the CIP gave them. Even still, the CIP was shocked at the response they later received.

The prosecutors found an expert of their own that looked the over the case. Not only did this person still proclaim that the 1989 fire was a case of arson, and accessed that JoAnn had set that fire, he also proclaimed that the previous fire, a year earlier, was also arson (apparently without any evidence to prove such) and repeatedly called her a “serial arsonist” in his report. So, based on this report the prosecutor was not about to agree with CIP and agree to releasing JoAnn in any manner. This forced the CIP to file for an hearing with the court.

The court heard the case in 2016. The CIP argued that in the original trial that “investigators and the jury were misled by bad science, or no science at all.” The part that blows me away is that apparently the state “admitted much of the evidence was false” they still “ignored changes in science and opined that even with the false evidence that evidence presented was true.” Yes, those were quotes and it is a lot of in my opinion, talking out both sides of their mouths. They were in essence saying.... yeah.... the evidence may have been false.... but it was good evidence. In the end the judge “called it a case of a battle of the experts” and the CIP lost. They kept up their fight but it seemed they could not get past basically how the judge ruled.

The CIP created what became known as “The California 12.” It was a list of twelve people who had been incarcerated that the CIP believed were wrongly convicted. It has been said that when JoAnn Parks was released after the Governor had granted her clemency she became the 9^th of the twelve people to be release. I cannot tell you for certain how many of those people were or have been exonerated or if they were simply released.

One of JoAnn's supporters had been a man by the name of Bob Lowe. He was a former Los Angeles fire department captain and an arson investigator. Bob would die before JoAnn was released but his wife and children took over his fight for her. In fact, upon her release it appears that she had to first spend time in a place much like a half way house and then the Lowe family planned to take her in. It is unclear whether the CIP will continue to fight for her complete exoneration since their most recent loss has just occurred in August of 2021 where once again the judge faced opposing experts.

I promise I am coming to an end here and I apologize for any mistakes within. I have had a lot going on in my life the last month and a half and doing research and then sticking with the case to get it composed has been a challenge. In fact, I initially had another case researched first and it seemed to be taking me so long to get everything together that I lost interest in it and that hinders me in putting it together. I almost got to that point with this case but I really think it is an important case that should be heard.

On that note I want to add a few things. I found a notation that Ron and JoAnn divorced at some point and in 2009 he remarried. He died in 2011. I also want to note that on Findagrave.com you can find the stones of the children (as well as Ron also) along with a story. Within that story it is said that JoAnn suffered burns on her face and hands due to the fire. I found this interesting because from my understanding, and most accounts, her story was that she opened her bedroom door, saw the fire and knew she couldn't get back through so she went out an outer door from her bedroom. Some have argued that leaving her own inner door open, and then possibly the outer door also could have fed the fire, which helped it spread more. I am not here to determine if that is true, nor am I here to fault her for that if it is true. None of us were there and it was not our children or even our home on fire. We have no idea what we would do and how we would react. That being said I still am uncertain about the burns. Nothing I found, including the book, indicated that she was treated for any burns at the scene or at the hospital later. While if she had burns on her body it may not completely vindicate her, it also could have possibly given the defense more to work with. The prosecutors may have tried to argue that she received them while setting the fire or even claim she had minor burns and caused them purposely so it “looked like” she tried to reach her children, the defense could have also likely worked with it also saying she made an effort and could not reach them.

As I said in the beginning this is a case that as of now has “legally” been solved but if you believe Ed Humes, it was a crime that never was. It will likely always come down to what each individual person believes.