Times Observer photo by Josh Cotton Pictured is Michael Burham being led for two preliminary hearings, centered around kidnapping charges against an elderly Mead Township couple and escape from the Warren County Jail.

When Michel Burham escaped from the Warren County Jail, kicking off a 10-day manhunt, a familiar refrain was “how could this possibly happen?”

In the months since the escape, county officials have been largely tight-lipped about what happened, how it happened, and what’s been done at the jail in response to the county’s first jail escape in the facility’s 40 year history.

The Times Observer presented a lengthy slate of questions to the Prison Board in recent weeks.

The responses provide additional perspective on the escape but leave many questions unanswered.

“The fact that the prison is a secure facility makes it difficult to appear ‘transparent’ as leaking information would generate security risks,” Commissioner Jeff Eggleston, writing on behalf of the Prison Board, told the Times Observer. “However, on its face, the groups involved have done everything they can to comply with all state regulations, state laws and gone above and beyond to execute internal investigations and changes.”

Perhaps the most fundamental question is whether this incident was an unfortunate accident or evidence of some systemic problems or sense of complacency at the jail.

Eggleston called the escape an “unfortunate situation” where Burham “utilized two very specific weaknesses in the jail system to facilitate an escape strategy no one has ever attempted or envisioned in four years and could not be easily duplicated.”

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t lessons to be learned.

“Burham’s escape was not the result of the complacency of jail administration, the staff on-site the evening of the escape, or any conspiracy,” he added. “It has, however, drawn light on specific structural and policy deficiencies that require remediation.”

Some of the changes detailed in the county’s response are “changes to access of video footage” as well as “reconfiguring the roof of ‘the yard,’ lighting (and) camera placements.”

“The safety of the staff, inmates, and, most importantly, the community is the utmost priority of the commissioners, corrections officers and jail administration and in the wake of the escape, the facility will be far more safe and secure due to the steps all parties have taken.”

STAFFING QUESTIONS

Burham’s escape marked his second time on the run this summer. Wanted for questioning in connection with a homicide in Jamestown, N.Y., he allegedly kidnapped a Warren County couple and fled to South Carolina, where he was apprehended in May. He returned to Warren County where he was placed in the county jail on the kidnapping charges. Inmates in the county jail are classified at different levels.

“In Burham’s case, due to his previous flight, he was designated a higher level than other inmates and required to be handcuffed at all times when not in his housing unit,” Eggleston explained. “The heightened designation was not a requirement but a judgment call by the jail administration.”

All inmates, though, must have yard time without “physical restrictions,” Eggleston said. He noted that Burham had not been charged with homicide.

“By those standards, he was not considered a greater threat than inmates in the jail who have murder charges against them,” he said. “Although a flight risk, he did not warrant a heightened status despite being given that status by jail administration.”

The county did not directly address questions regarding whether the classification process was impacted by the pandemic, whether the jail is equipped to handle high-risk inmates or whether Burham should have been held at a higher security facility from the outset.

“It’s important to note that there are no ‘maximum security county prisons’ or ‘minimum security county prisons,'” Eggleston said. “The Warren County Jail has successfully held many terrible criminals convicted of violent crimes. The county jail currently houses inmates charged with murder and high-risk suspects from other counties.”

Shifting to the night that Burham escaped — July 6 — questions of staffing at the jail were commonplace in the days that followed,

“The jail is not fully staffed but has enough workers to cover all shifts,” Eggleston said.

He said they would not be disclosing the size of a platoon at the jail for security reasons.

“Suffice it to say the platoon was full the night of the escape and actually had an additional person,” he explained.

The Times Observer has learned that there were individuals terminated from employment at the jail in connection with this incident.

“We cannot discuss the reasons for terminations or resignations as it creates liabilities for the county in the form of lawsuits and violations of former employees’ privacy,” Eggleston said.

SHARING VIDEO AND POSSIBLE CONSPIRACY

While police and jail staff responded to the escape almost instantaneously, police were critical of a delay in acquiring video footage from the county that could have where where Burham left the courthouse grounds.

“The county responded as quickly as it could, given the circumstances,” Eggleston said. “The search for Burham commenced immediately on immediate fronts, one of which was from the city police. Change to access of video footage and other security apparatus have changed since the Burham escape to expand access further and increase efficiencies within our system.”

The county won’t provide images or videos that could more accurately detail for the public how Burham managed to escape. Such media could “create security concerns as other inmates and potential escapees could study that information and figure out other ways to exploit the system.”

In the wake of the escape, multiple investigations were undertaken. Most notably is the criminal investigation conducted by City of Warren police and prosecuted by the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.

Burham was initially charged with a single count of escape. A count of conspiracy to commit escape was added at the preliminary hearing. That would seem to indicate that charges against additional individuals are likely as the conspiracy statute in Pennsylvania requires conduct with “another person or persons to commit a crime.”

POSSIBLE CHANGES

Other reviews include an internal review led by Commissioner Ben Kafferlin as well as a third-party review by the state Department of Corrections. That Department of Corrections evaluation was in addition to routine biennial inspections, most recently in June 2022 which uncovered “no major deficiencies.”

The internal review, Eggleston explained, “generated a clear timeline of the escape and thoroughly reviewed staff and policies to identify any deficiencies beyond the obvious.

“Many of the upgrades to security cameras, alert systems and structures inside and outside the jail were a result of the Prison Board’s ongoing investigation.”

State inspections, Eggleston outlines, “focus a great deal on policy” and appear to place an emphasis on paperwork.

“It is the administration’s responsibility to ensure all forms are filled out properly and timely,” Eggleston said. “They sometimes make recommendations related to lighting or placement of vehicles and what not. Generally, the facility and its staff, especially maintenance, get good marks for their work.”

Ongoing plans to reconfigure the roof of the yard were “initiated immediately” in response to the evaluation. “No recommendation from any of the state’s recent inspections would have had any effect on the Burham escape.”

The county, however, will not be releasing those reports.

“The Burham escape was out of the ordinary as the facility has received high marks from Pa. DOC regularly, and this is the first highly visible escape since the jail’s construction in the early (1980s),” Eggleston said.

County jails are set up one of two ways – direct supervision or, as is the case here, a camera-centric model with control rooms.

That fundamental model is unlikely to shift as a result of this incident.

“At this point, it would be a massive cost to change systems to a direct supervision model,” Eggleston said, “as the jail would have to triple its staff.”

He estimated the cost to be between $500,000 and $1 million.

“And since it’s been difficult to find workers to fill correction officers vacancies, the likelihood of even achieving that increase in staff would be highly unlikely,” he added. “The DOC’s review of our report stated that the Warren County Jail was one of the state’s nicest county facilities they’ve reviewed.”

No charging decision has been made public regarding the homicide in New York State. Burham remains behind bars at the Erie County Prison on the charges here – kidnapping and associated offenses as well as escape.

Online court records show his next court date is a settlement conference scheduled for Monday.

As the case winds through the legal system, so does the bid process for a permanent solution to the jail yard roof as the commissioners await bids

County officials are looking for “roofing material to be placed over the steel beams and secured for security, allowing fresh air into the yard,” the proposal’s scope of work details. Currently, the roof is secured with a chain-linked fence.

“The county would prefer it replaced with a metal mesh that would both allow airflow and prevent objects from passing through the membrane,” the RFP states.

The bid window will close on Oct. 23.

“The Commissioners and Prison Board have done everything in their power to move forward on improvements to the current prison system to prevent another escape,” Eggleston said.