Report: Matthew Badger May Sue Michael Borcina Over Deadly Christmas Day Fire

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Matthew Badger lost his three daughters in a deadly blaze on Christmas Day in Stamford that stunned the Tri-State community.

The house caught fire after Michael Borcina, the contractor working on the home and also the boyfriend of Matthew’s estranged wife Madonna Badger, put coals and hot ashes from the fireplace next to the trash enclosure attached to the home. The enclosure caught fire and the house was soon engulfed.

WCBS 880 Connecticut Bureau Chief Fran Schneidau With The Latest On The Investigation

In January, officials in Connecticut were scrutinizing the circumstances of the blaze, trying to determine if it was just a horrible accident or a crime.

Sources told CBS 2’s Lou Young the core of the potential criminal issue has to do with the smoke detectors and fire extinguishers which may have been removed from the home, which caught fire while under renovation. If they were stored in the garage or elsewhere, that may be construed as criminally negligent homicide or even manslaughter. Since Borcina is the contractor responsible for the renovation, he could find himself facing criminal charges.

The New York Post reported Matthew Badger has taken preliminary steps that would pave the way for a wrongful death suit against Borcina.

Badger reportedly has no intention of suing his estranged wife, who was in the house with Borcina when it burned down. The blaze killed the three Badger children Lily, Sarah and Grace along with Madonna’s parents Lomer and Pauline Johnson.

“The fact is that Borcina was the contractor on the job. He was aware of the dangers, or should have been aware of dangers, that a civilian would have been unaware of,” Matthew Badger’s attorney Richard Emery told the Post.

Do you think Matthew Badger should sue Michael Borcina? Sound off in our comments section below. 


One Comment

  1. Joe Land says:

    Matthew Badger Should keep his investigators on this. There is so much information that is out there and not investigated. Why are all of the local, state and government agencies just sitting on thier hands? Why is it taking so long to react to this devistating fire that is going on 2 months already? Oh, I know, the detectives in Stamdford do not know how to conduct an investigation. How many ex employee’s and current employee’s have they spoke to? There are so many questions that have still not been asked and answerred and the paperwork was given to the prosecutors office? Is the police department giving the building department, fire marshals office and even the mayor a PASS? How is it that the building inspector was able to get in the house but the police were not given the oppurtunity? Even if the house was deemed unstable and demolished, where did they take the debris? The entire house did not burn to the ground and the investigators could have gone through the debris and collect evidence to either incriminate or clear Mike and MaDonna? How is it that the building department can say and I quote” IT IS NOT OUR JOBS TO MAKE SURE EVERY CONTRACTOR IS REGISTERED TO WORK” This statement was given in one of the very first television interveiws! The state needs to jump in here head first and begin thier own investigation. Stamford is protecting thier own and just does not cut it. Find ALL of the employee’s that worked in the house from November to Christmas and then the entire truth will come out. Do not let the criminals in this case get a free pass and a slap on the wrist!! Do your jobs, investigate the case as if these who lost thier lives in the tragic fire were your own.

    1. NYC10009 says:

      Great post.

  2. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Interloper I meant to say the Prosecutor shouldn’t jump too quick in my last post sorry typo. What I think is they need to be very careful and find out all of the facts before filing charges. With so much up in the air they need to investigate further. In order to determine criminality, they must have a thoroughly complete investigation of fact finding.

  3. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Interloper I wasn’t aware that there were so many unanswered questions until I saw Attorney Emery’s interview today. The Police gave their final report to the Prosecutor. It’s really an incomplete report. The Prosecutor should jump too quick because issues like this generally result in a dismissal or hung jury at trial.

  4. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Interloper I would like your opinion of my comment and I’m serious with no sarcasm. My previous post has the details, but today News 12 CT had a live interview with Matthew Badger’s lawyer. He said that there were multiple contradicting stories about who did what, when. They don’t know where children were found, all of these unanswered questions nearly 2 months after the fire. Don’t you agree there’s something very wrong with that?

    1. Interloper says:

      All I can agree with in total honesty is that we all need to wait until the investigations have been completed when hopefully all of the missing facts will be disclosed and any confusion over what really happened on that fateful night will be clarified. In the meantime, discussing the facts we are aware of in an intelligent way without prejudice is fine. However, let the law decide who is guilty of what. Obviously, the fact pattern that we are aware of that led to the death of three beautiful children and their grandparents is very disturbing. I think we all believe that this tragedy did not need to happen which has led to an outpouring of emotions, some of which has been of a brutal negative nature based on assumptions which may or may not be ultimately proven to be true. Peace!

      1. Sharon says:

        I would like to know who would have a clear memory of exactly what transpired after going through such devastation. Oh – sorry!!! Yes – of COURSE Deborah and Company would! Anyway I’m out – I’ll leave you all to your witch hunt!

        1. AE says:

          Sharon, the best way to deal with people like Deborah and her acolytes is to ignore them… They have monopolized this forum…. You are right, let’s leave them to their witch hunt… I am out as well !

  5. Deborah Jeffries says:

    I watched the News 12 CT interview with Attorney Emery and surprisingly the reporter did a pretty good story. Emery said there are multiple stories and contradicting explanations for who did what, when and where the girls were even found is unclear at this point. He also said he created the fire trap there’s no dispute about that and he probably had a major hand in creating the fire.

    1. Suzette says:

      Deborah, congrats to that station for giving Attorney Emery air time to state some unpleasant truths, particularly the changing stories surrounding the girls’ deaths. Someone on one of these threads posted that a member of his, or her, family was a criminal lawyer who used to say: Beware of changing stories and who utters them.

    2. Francis Ford says:

      Deborah do you have a link for this News 12 CT by any chance? I looked and found another interview I think. I posted that link here.

  6. Sharon says:

    I understand that anger is now setting in and, along with that anger comes the fundamental need to lay blame. To point fingers. I get it. However, to those who think that Madonna Badger should be hauled into court along with her boyfriend, clearly you are not mothers. There is nothing that you, or any court system, or anyone else for that matter, can do to her now that would punish her or inflict any more pain on her than what she is experiencing right now. Leave this woman alone. Be assured that she is in hell and will likely remain there until the day she dies.

    1. jean k says:

      Punishing her is of no interest to me…pls do not misunderstand. However, to see her getting a free pass over and over on responsibility – keeping her children SAFE at home IS a parental responsibility – Seems to be just more of the dumbing down of all America. I do not buy into her victimhood – She is too smart to NOT ASK: “Honey, where are the smoke detectors? Do we have Carbon Monoxide ones too?” When assembling the Christmas tree, moving in her 3 minor babies and inviting her parents for the holiday. Leave her alone? . I guess I am angry cuz selfishness is soooo acceptable these days that it can not even be recognized. And it is “judgmental” to acknowledge. Poor kids, dragged thru divorce then to die like that after Mommy made a ‘mistake.’

      1. Sharon says:

        So then what exactly DO you want if not to punish? Public lynching? Stoning? Condemnation? My point is you and I both know the woman is blaming herself every second of every day – but I guess that’s not enough? Sure she is not without blame here but it’s not clear to me what you (and others who hold your opinion) think should happen! Please explain!

        1. lauralee3 says:

          Sharon – consider this: If Diane Schuler had miraculously survived the accident in which in her own child, three nieces and three men were killed as she drunkenly drove down the wrong side of the Taconic Parkway a few summers ago, she would be in jail today. If Madonna Badger had rented that house to someone and the fire still killed 5 people, she – as homeowner, would still be held legally responsible for the conditions of the house. You don’t get a pass in the legal system because people for bad for you. The law is the law.

          I DO feel bad for her, but someone(s) needs to be held accountable for this horrific tragedy. It was completely avoidable.

          1. Suzette says:

            Excellent analogies, lauralee. I wanted to cite that very case today but coudn’t recall the drunken mother’s name. Her awful husband went on TV a lot after the accident, trying to blame everyone but her.

          2. Sharon says:

            Then hold the right person accountable. That person is the man who improperly disposed of the embers. Had he not done that, we would not be having this conversation.

            1. Suzette says:

              Sharon, the general public doesn’t know whether Borcina disposed of the embers, or Badger. Both claim it was Borcina, and so what. Unfortunately, any evidence was destroyed, when the bulldozers quickly arrived on the scene and tore the house down. So, we may never know which of the two put the smoldering embers into the bag and left it lying against an interior wooden wall of the mudroom. We only know that it was her mudroom, her fireplace, her house, her doomed family. As the homeowner on record, she was legally responisble for the safety of the occupants. That is a fact, and will remain a fact, even if her connections and money absolve her of any culpability.

            2. Francis Ford says:

              If you read the earliest coverage of this story you will see it was stated that they BOTH disposed of the ashes. The the story changed.

              1. Suzette says:

                Hi there, Francis. I had forgotten that. You’re right.

          3. Sharon says:

            And how is this a similar analogy?

            1. lauralee3 says:

              Adults in charge of kids did not do the right thing which ultimately led to their deaths…THAT’S the analogy…..duh!!

    2. Suzette says:

      Sharon, you are so wrong. As a mother, I protect my children. I would never in a million years move them into a dangerous house! What kind of a mother was Madonna Badger? Not much of one for putting her three young girls and elderly parents in harm’s way. Also, I think it is mistake to try to make our feelings HER feelings. We simply do not know whether she is blaming herself now for those horrible deaths, or not. We only know how WE would feel in her shoes, but this is called projection, which doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with truth.

    3. Interloper says:

      Sharon thank you for your humane sentiments, which I fully agree with. Condemning Madonna Badger in the media serves no purpose in my humble opinion.

      1. Sharon says:

        Thank you Interloper – it seems as though some people want to demonize this woman and make her out to be some kind of monster who is partying every night and not even capable of mourning the deaths of her children…. who are these people? Pretty vicious stuff and it speaks volumes about what their characters if you ask me.

        1. LOL says:

          Ooops! Sharon just outed herself as Interloper.

          1. Sharon says:

            How pathetic you are – nice try but NOT! I highly doubt that I’m the only civil person around (although we do seem to be few and far between) – go LOL somewhere else

        2. LOL says:

          Oops! Sharon just outed herself as Interloper.

  7. jean k says:

    Yes, Borcino needs to be held accountable. BUT Madonna made the unbelieveable selfish decision move her children into a house that did not have a CofO….DO NOT tell me she did not know – it is her responsibility to know – she is touted as a woman with a BRILLIANT mind – oh yeah, so why the clean pass on this one? Nope she is equally, if not MORE, responsible than MB cuz it was her family and her decisions to make….this was all about what Madonna wanted….and no one stopped Madonna from getting what she wanted…no laws, no people, no common sense…Nothing. Now, let’s look at the results of THAT brilliant thinking. She is a victim of her own desires.

    1. jay2341 says:

      I understand your anger at Ms Badger but her culpability isn’t what you might think. A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued when a building is first built. From that point on, the building can be legally occupied. (If you re-modeled a bedroom or install new siding would you move out of your home. ??? – Of course not.) When re-modeling is being done, the portion of the home being re-modeled should not be occupied until a Certificate of Compliance (CC) has been issued. That only covers the new work and has nothing to do with the CO. Ms Badger was occupying the home legally as long as she wasn’t occupying the re-modeled portion before a CC had been issued. Where she may be liable is with her connection to the Building Permit. Was the building permit issued in her name? That too is legal, anyone can contract work for their own home but they must be actively involved in the work.She must hire the sub-contractors and pay them. She must oversee the work. In other words, she can’t pull a permit and then let Borcina do the contracting. Borcina didn’t have a license in CT so he should not have been able to obtain a Building Permit. The Building Department should have checked his license and denied him a permit if indeed he applied for one. More than likely, he told Ms. Badger to obtain a permit and then he would do the work for her. That should be easy to check.The Building Prmit is a matter of public record. Whoever did the electrical, plumbing and mechanical work as well as drywall, siding and painting would know who hired them, Borcina or Badger. If it was Borcina, he would be guilty of contracting without a license in CT and he would be responsible for letting the owner occupy any portion of the building that didn’t have a CC. He would also be responsible for disconnecting any smoke alarms during re-modeling. If Ms Badger obtained the Building Permit then she would be responsible for seeing that the work and occupancy comply with the law. It all hinges on who got the permit and who was actually doing the work. My gut feeling is that any involvement in the Contracting by Ms. Badger’s was quite innocent and was only done at the suggestion of Borcina.

      1. Fried eggs says:

        The permit IS a matter of public record, and it’s been reported on. Borcina pulled the permits in the of a CT licensed contractor/acquaintence.

        1. Suzette says:

          Correct. To get the permits, Borcina used the name of a licensed contractor.

        2. jay2341 says:

          That’s good news for Ms. Badger. Bad news for the contractor who allowed his license to be used by Borcina. The contractor of record will be legally liable for any wrongdoing related to the renovations such as removing smoke alarms and allowing people to occupy areas that didn’t have a CA (Certificate of Approval) from the Building Dept. Both contractors will be in deep doo doo and hopfully they’ll get what they deserve for trying to skirt the law.

    2. Suzette says:

      jean k, agree. Either she was incredibly stupid – her career as a successful business executive would negate that theory – or she was completely self-centered and grandiose. Regarding your first comment, I completely agree. Thanks in large part to an indulgent media, the victim mentality in our country is alive and well. We have become a society of Peter Pan types who won’t grow up, who react to the idea of personal responsiblity and accountability with arrogance or public crocodile tears, expecting the rest of us to shrug off the behavior, and even admire it. Meanwhile, real victims, such as the five who died in the Stamford fire, and so many more like them, frequently become a foot note in the media.

      1. Sharon says:

        Suzedtte – the only arrogance I sense here is yours and people like yourself who think that you are infallible and beyond reproach. I actually think pompous would be a better word! One can only hope that you are not taught a lesson in humility before long – don’t pretend to be God. The person who improperly disposed of those ashes is the one to blame. Had he not done that, we would not be having this conversation tonight. Had he left those embers in the fireplace where they belonged, that family would have woken up to open Christmas presents that morning (in that dangerous house) – was it going to self-implode? Let’s leave the responsibility for this where it belongs.

        1. Suzette says:

          Hmm, you seem to be the person with a godlike pretense, as you dogmatically tell us that only Borcine could have left the fatal embers in the mudroom. Unless you were there, looking over God’s shoulder, you don’t know who disposed of the embers. Maybe you should take a teaspoon of that humility that you want to rain down on others.

          Oh, and yeah, it was a dangerous house. Which you might have known, if you had read the news accounts. For starters, this three story, wooden house was built over a hundred years ago with balloon construction, the type of construction that hasn’t been used in decades, because it isn’t safe. How unfortunate the house was being “renovated” by someone with multiple legal judgments against him for shoddy work and taking money for work never completed. This character didn’t even have a contractor’s license in CT, or anywhere else, for that matter. His “work” on Badger’s house was a shambles, according to crews who had been on the site. It was not ready for occupancy. Yet, Badger’s girls slept on the third floor. Neither the wannabe contractor, or Badger, saw fit to install smoke detectors. On Christmas Eve they used one of the homes’s hundred-year-old fireplaces without a single smoke detector in the house. There wasn’t even a fire extinquisher. If they had left the embers in the fireplace – instead of bagging them and leaving the bag in a wooden room off the kitchen, of all places – the house probably would have been standing on Christmas morning. As it was, though, it was a very old, unsafe house, a fire trap waiting to ignite, with gross human recklessness striking the fatal match.

  8. Phillip says:

    Just read this in a Greenwich paper: Certified Fire Protection Specialist Daniel Gardiner, a former fire chief in Fairfield, said he has been closely following news coverage of the Stamford fire and is puzzled by the city’s approach to the investigation. He said his Fire Department always took advantage of the state Fire Marshal’s Office after fatal fires during his tenure as fire chief.

    “When there was a death, we would ask the state fire marshal’s office to assist,” Gardiner said. “It’s free.”

    Gardiner said he was also perplexed by Chief Building Official Bob DeMarco’s decision to tear down Badger’s 116-year-old Shippan Avenue home the day after the fire. DeMarco had inspected what was left of the home with Callahan before declaring the building unsafe and issuing the order to have it razed.

    “It’s beyond weird,” Gardiner said. “Gosh, is that unusual. What I would do is fence it, and hire someone — either a Stamford police officer or a private security company — to sit there.”

    Richard Emery, a New Haven attorney representing the Badger girls’ father, Matthew Badger, has also questioned the city’s decision to knock down the three-story house. Emery said the demolition prevented insurance investigators and other agencies from investigating the blaze.

    “You have to wonder what somebody was thinking when they made that decision,” Emery said.

    DeMarco did notr return calls for comment Monday or Tuesday.

    1. Phillip says:

      I hope this pans out, because Madonna Badger was irresponsible like her lover: Authorities mulling whether to file criminal charges in the Christmas Day fire that killed the three daughters of a Manhattan ad exec are facing the possibility that the devastated mom might also have to be charged.

      Until now, speculation focused on the idea that if there is a criminal case, the contractor boyfriend of Madonna Badger, Michael Borcina, would be charged because he physically disposed of the ashes.

      But sources told The Post that authorities believe if they filed charges against Borcina, they’ll also have to charge Badger because she would bear some responsibility.

  9. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Joe Land with all due respect, how could you attest to the fact regarding asbestos? I live in the Stamford area and would be concerned about wind currents carrying dust. Have you been in the house, seen blueprints, building records? This house was over 100 years old and before they knew the dangers of the fibers.

  10. Interloser says:

    How low can you stoop to make such filthy, disgusting and demented comments.
    I hope when you reach your old age that you will be discarded as a “useless” piece of inhuman rubbish.

  11. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Also I’m sure Matthew Badger’s attorney is waiting to see if Borcina will be criminally charged. If that happens, the lawyer will likely hold on the wrongful death suit until he is tried because he can use the testimony from the criminal trial in his civil case. Even if Borcina is acquitted, he could still lose the civil case because the standard is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials.

  12. Deborah Jeffries says:

    The case is in the Prosecutor’s hands now. Even if Cohen decides to file charges, it would take about 2 years for it to go to trial. The process is tedious with the discovery phase including Prosecution evidence and Defense exculpatory evidence review, jury selection etc. I hope a plea bargain deal is not considered should they prosecute.

  13. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Very good and insightful comment Jay. I didn’t even think of the asbestos issue. The house likely had it because of its age and the winds would definitely carry the fibers endangering people living or working in the vicinity.

  14. jay2341 says:

    I’ve been commenting on this disaster since it first happened. As a former Building Inspector it is inconceivable to me that the building was demolished so quickly and I am glad to see that the authorities in the State of CT are investigating this crime. (Yes, the demolition was a crime – destroying evidence where the deaths of five people were involved.) To demolish a building, a permit is required. To get a permit, the applicant must show compliance with Federal Asbestos Abatement laws. (See CFR 40 Part 61) Asbestos was commonly used as pipe insulation in older buildings. I doubt if the building was inspected for asbestos because the Monday after Christmas was a holiday and the building was demolished on Tuesday. There are also concerns about lead based paint in this old building. For those people that live close to the demolition site, watch out for signs of asbestos or lead paint induced illnesses especially in children. Once the demolition trackhoe started its work, the fine dust from the wreckage would spread throughout the area with the wind. I hope those affected will take action against whoever authorized the demolition. (Chief Building Inspector, Fire Marshal or Mayor) so that this will never happen again.

    1. Joe Land says:

      It seems like you started a new topic to take the peoples minds out into the universe. Although we cannot change the outcome of the fire, there is no reason to begin with speculation as to whether or not there was asbestos in the house. I can attest to the fact there was none. As to the lead paint, the interior of the house has probably been painted over and over and the lead paint IS NOT AN ISSUE!!!! at this point. I STRONGLY AGREE that someone needs to answer to the authorities about the demolition, especially the building inspector how is getting notorious for making BIG mistakes in the past few weeks. THe comments should be focused on the fact of whether or not there should be criminal charges and I do believe that someone should pay the price for this and I am not talking about money.

      1. jay2341 says:

        Thanks for your reply. How can you ATTEST to the fact that there was no asbestos or other hazardous materials in this 100 plus year old building? Lead based paint may have been painted over many times but the original coat of paint will still be there to some degree. When pulverized by the track-hoe that demolished the building, this toxic soup of asbestos, lead paint and other unknown toxic materials would have been spread around the local area by the wind. The point is that there are Federal Laws that require the inspection of buildings before they are demolished. If Asbestos is found, it must be removed by licensed Asbestos Removal Contractors. My agenda is to stop unlicensed contractors from operating in the state of CT. I also want those responsible for demolishing the building to be held accountable. I also want the people of Stamford CT to know that there was a potential release of toxic dust containing Asbestos, lead paint and other toxic materials into the local community because incompetent building officials, fire officials and/or the mayor allowed this building to be demolished before a full forensic investigation had been completed. Nothing will bring back the three beautiful girls and their loving grandparents but those accountable for the inexcusable decision to demolish the building must be held accountable.

        1. Joe Land says:

          Alright Jay2341 I will do this once with you. You seem to be an educated man but for someone with so much knowledge I feel your not doing your job here. I am sure you know the meaning of ATTEST so that will stand for itself. Yes the permits are a matter of public record. Did you bother to look up the contractor of record? It is NOT Mike Borcina or Tiberias Construcution. Did you look to see if the electrician of record was the elctrician that worked on the house. No the elctricain of record (because to do this work you need a permit) did not do the electrical work in the house. You do need to be licensed in the state to be a contractor, electrician or a plumber. Not only were the subcontractors not on record but they were NOT licensed to work in the state, never mind being registered to do residential work. At the very beginning the mayor or building inspector stated in an interveiw that the building permits were up to date and it was not thier job to look into the contractors to see if they were licensed in the state. There is a trail of cover ups from the mayor on down. Why is there still no paperwork filed on the demolition of the house? How can the building inspector go into the basement with the fire marshal and then deem the house unsafe and choose to demolish the house before the police had a chance to do an investigation? If the house was unsafe and they were permitted to know it down where is the debris? There is still evidence that can be found in the rubble. What did they do with the debris? As for the asbestos and the lead paint it sounds like you are on a crusade. Did you loose someone near and dear? These items are an issue but they do not campare to the questions that are in front of everyone’s minds, How did this happen and why are there no charges as of yet? The police captain stated yesterday that he did not recommend crriminal charges. Here is the reason why the state should be investigating this. Stamford is one big BOYS CLUB and does not want to go after thier own. I hope that the father’s private investigator does not let them get away with this. although convicting someone will not bring the girls and the grandparents back if criminal charges are not broughtb here anyone who wants to work without a license will do so with no fear of punishment. This cannot be swept inder the rug. There are a lot of laws that were broken from contractors to city hall and let the chips fall where they may.

      2. Phillip says:

        I agree with your comment, but how do you know there was no asbestos?

  15. Deborah Jeffries says:


    1. AE says:

      Whao…. What a venom spewing viper you are! I thought you had gone away… But no, you are back, and as usual, you do not tolerate anyone who does not share you opinion…

    2. Interloser says:

      Deborah Jeffries–It is so amazing that you comment, in a snide and sarcastic way, to those whose comments are not in agreement with your thought pattern. Yet, you and your gal pals here accuse those who reject or oppose your views as stalkers and/or trolls. It appears that you can dish it out, but can’t take it. You and your gal pals here are using this CBS forum as your personal IM (internet messaging) system (i.e., comments of a personal nature having nothing to do with the subject matter). It’s apparent that you delight in your abhorrent behavior. Can you please explain to me how Madonna Badger left her family to die based on the limited facts in the media? It is all conjecture on your part. Did you ever think that the house was such a raging infero when she awoke that if she left via her bedroom door, it would have meant jumping into the fire and being consumed immediately. How would that action have saved anyone who died? As you well know, the inferno was too intense even for the fireman to save anyone. You don’t know any of the exact details of that night because you weren’t in the house. So stop shooting from the hip with all of your stupid assumptions and stick to the facts without your melodrama. I think you should “wake up” before hitting everyone else over the head with a sledge hammer. If you are intelligent, then act intelligent and speak intelligently.

      1. Phillip says:

        Hey, bully troll, if you don’t like the comments, run along and play nazi cop somewhere else!

        1. James T. says:

          “If you don’t like the comments, run along and play nazi cop somewhere else!!”

          said the pot to the kettle.

          What a laugh.

  16. Joe Land says:

    OH By the way, If the investigation is left for the Stamford Police Department to investigate, Borcina, the building department and the frie marshal will be have tequilla sunrises in another country laughing thier ass off at what a bunch of yahoo’s the detctives are. LAZY!!!

  17. Joe Land says:

    This whole thing is a mess and the children and grandparents paid for the mistake of an arogant egotistical maniac who thinks he is above the law and his way is the only way. He should be held accountable for his actions in a court of his peers. Also the building department should have thier day in court. Who gave the building department the right to knock down a crime scene? Why have they STILL Not filed the report of the incedent? Both the fire marshal and the building inspector (who by the way is in trouble over another blunder) should also be brought up on charges. No matter how you turn this it still does not bring those girls and the grandparents back but I beleive it is called closure.

  18. CR says:

    I worked briefly for Mike Borcina over a year ago, this guy was the ultimate Prick. I have been doing carpentry for 34 years and this was the 1st time i was ever treated like an animal so like all his other workers i quit with him owing me money which i never received .Understand this, as a contractor you must know all the rules of safety, you cannot perform work without having smoke detectors and fire extinguishers installed and are not to be removed for any reason. Even if the smoke detectors were removed why were the fire extinguishers removed? They are portable, there should have been 1 in every room. Borcina has numerous law suites against him from other clients. i know from the brief time i worked for him he has no regards for safety and this time it cost 5 lives.

  19. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Hey Little Orphan Annie, the unspeakable tragedy happened to Matthew Badger and the five victims who couldn’t escape a fire started by Michael Borcina and fueled by an unsafe house MADONNA BADGER let them live in so take your outrage elsewhere to an audience that is foolish enough to listen.

  20. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Hi Frances! Matthew Badger’s lawyer should NOT be defending Madonna. Her fake crying in front of the church (NOT ONE TEAR ON HER FACE) and her great scaffolding performance should have earned her an Oscar. BRAVO!

    1. nrichard says:

      My God you are stupid – to what end would she want her children AND her parents dead? Your statements are outrageous and incredibly stupid! What the hell is wrong with you? Your crazed vendetta against a woman you do not even know is not alone frightening but it is psychotic! You need serious help! You rant about this and you rant about the Giants getting a parade – you are a Walmart away from buying a firearm and killing those you deem evil! You are really a sick, sick person who obviously has A LOT of anger issues.

      1. Deborah Jeffries says:

        I got yer parade, RIGHT HERE!

        1. nrichard says:

          Sweetheart name the time and place – we will see what you got – and what you will get moron.

  21. Ann says:

    I am simply shocked to hear people criticizing Madonna. I think that this is in really poor taste. Madonna and Matthew are both suffering from an unspeakable tragedy.

    1. lauralee3 says:

      Yes, she is suffering…but she was also legally responsible for the well-being and safety of their children, and she failed.

  22. Francis Ford says:

    Hello everyone!
    The question posed above is: “Do you think Matthew Badger should sue Michael Borcina? ”
    My answer: Yes! And obviously!

  23. Francis Ford says:

    “Do you think Matthew Badger should sue Michael Borcina? ”
    Yes! And obviously!

  24. lauralee3 says:

    Yes it is good to see Matthew taking charge of the situation. He was so vulnerable at the time of the funeral, but not now. Brains will win out over brawn. I don’t think Borcina’s worth much though. Wonder where he’s been these last few weeks….

  25. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Hey Cherry, I know we don’t always agree but I’m with you on that. The only difference is I think it should be Reckless Manslaughter in the Second Degree because the recklessness was a careless, neglectful act that caused the death of a human being. The culpability standard is higher.

  26. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Hi Suzette! I agree with you. I’ve been saying all along there is a cover-up in the City Building Department. They granted permits to an unlicensed contractor, tore down a crime scene before it was investigated and are stalling the release of reports to the Police so the investigation can move forward.

    1. Francis Ford says:

      I agree there’s a cover -up Deborah. This was very obvious from the outset.

  27. Cherry says:

    What “civilian” would not have been aware of the dangers of putting hot coals and ash in or near the house, without first dousing them with water? Maybe children? Not adults! If this was not negligent homicide what was it?

  28. st says:

    The only good that is coming from this is that Mathew Badger is taking charge of a bad situation. I give him a world of credit. And good to see his lawyer question the expediency of knocking down the house within days. What’s wrong with having a ‘private’ fire investigation done? Did the building permit expire and no survey was completed to see that occupancy was ‘warranted? Obviously, under the conditions on Xmas eve, due to a lack of smoke detectors, it was not. I question if there were OTHER things that may have deemed that house uninhabitable. Things that would have caused a fire to spread like that. Exposed wooden studs with no sheet rock?

    1. Francis Ford says:

      I agree with you st. I think this is the real reason the house was torn down so fast: there were OTHER things illegal inside. The smoke detectors being removed and placed outside in the garage was NOT the reason the whole house was instantly demolished in my opinion.

  29. Deborah Jeffries says:

    The pictures of Matthew Badger and the girls in today’s NY Post were heartbreaking. Makes me think of how they choked and suffocated from the smoke that killed them. Matthew’s attorney is wrong about Madonna Badger not being aware of the danger. To put all the blame on Borcina is unfair and he said he should’ve known better. A FIVE YEAR OLD WOULD KNOW BETTER!!

  30. Deborah Jeffries says:

    I just wish that people would wake up about Madonna Badger. I see so many websites describing her desperate attempts to save her children from outside on the scaffolding. She should never have exited the house without her family in the first place. That was not an act of heroism. It meant that she left the house which was why she was OUTSIDE on the scaffolding.

    1. Suzette says:

      Yes, that performance she gave outside for the firemen means nothing. It was her actions BEFORE they arrived that tells the tale, She didn’t dial 911, and she ran out of the house. She ran, even though her parents and at least one of her children were on the second floor of that house – the samefloor where she and Borcina had been sleeping.

  31. Deborah Jeffries says:

    I just don’t get why Matthew’s lawyer doesn’t think Madonna is responsible too. This is an educated and brilliant business woman. He’s portraying her as a little Bambi fawn who was unaware of the danger. Oh gimmie a break PLEASE!

    1. Suzette says:

      Hi, Deborah and NYC! Deborah, I saw your comments on a post-Superbowl Madonna (singer) thread, but hours later, so I figured you were gone. This may be my first and last comment for today, because I have been having an Internet issue and am posting this via dial-up! Which is like trying to communicate with two tin cans and a string. Plus, it takes a very long time. Anyhow, I agree with you. Badger is no Bambi. She is every bit as accountable for those deaths as her thug boyfriend, so I don’t get why Matthew’s lawyer is trying to portray her as naive nincompoop, unless he is hoping that if Borcina thinks he is in this all alone, he will start spilling the beans. This is what you said below, NYC. I am sure we all noticed how that incinerated house rented by psycho Powell is still standing, yet Badger’s house was demolished in 24 hours. Coverup. So glad Mr. Badger is taking legal action!

  32. Deborah Jeffries says:

    Hi NYC! Ultimately if Matthew Badger wins a wrongful death suit against Borcina, Madonna would get half. Sickening that she could profit off letting her family die!

    1. NYC10009 says:

      Hopefully, that’s why he set up that trust/memorial fund – where any award money from the wrongful death suit would go, and she wouldn’t be able to touch any of it. That’s what the NY Post reports if you check their website.

  33. Deborah Jeffries says:

    My question is why are the City’s Building and Fire Departments stalling with information the Police requested as reported? Hiding something? The Police can get a subpoena if the stalling continues. And good for Matthew Badger!

    1. NYC10009 says:

      Hi Deborah! It’s good Matthew Badger is doing this, but still think Madonna Badger needs to be held equally as accountable. In fact, she’s more to blame because she allowed such negligence to occur in HER home, gave Borcina ultimate power over the safety of her family while turning a blind eye, and, even Matthew’s lawyer said it: it was “outrageous” anybody was living in that dangerous house. Yet she allowed them to do so. She could see there were no working smoke detectors, so as the home owner, she’s the one who should have made sure there were battery operated ones installed until the hard-wired smoke detection system was activated.

      Maybe Matthew’s lawyer said there’s no point in suing Madonna Badger for legal reasons, or perhaps they’re hoping that Borcina will point the finger at her in the process.

  34. NYC10009 says:

    Agree. To me, Madonna Badger should be held responsible, as well. The husband’s lawyer was quoted as saying this in the NY Post today: “The fact that kids were living in this house was unbelievable . . . I don’t hold Madonna Badger responsible for that at all because I can’t imagine she would have understood the immediacy of the dangers.” Yet as the mother, how could she allow her family to sleep even one night in the home without proper permits and working smoke detectors, and then allowed her contractor boyfriend to dispose of lethal, live fireplace ashes any way he damn pleased??? It was HER home and HER fireplace, and ultimately the safety of her family was HER responsibility, even though she hired and slept with this apparent jerk contractor.

    1. Francis Ford says:

      I have not seen the Post yet but I do find it odd the lawyer would say he does not hold her responsible at all as she did would not have “understood the immediacy of the dangers”. Here I feel he is almost defending her. I feel she should have known better herself, as she was no dummy by any means. But all the losses she must cope with are more punishment than I could ever bear. Maybe that is how the lawyer sees it? I don’t know. It could also be his ploy to get Borcina to spill whatever beans there are to spill. Time will hopefully tell.

      1. Sharon says:

        Francine you are correct – any “punishment” she would receive now from the legal system, media or the many haters (as seen on this blog) will pale in comparison to the ultimate punishment which she is dealing with now. So go ahead – throw her in jail – execute her. It will be a walk in the park for her I assure you.

  35. kevin says:

    Borcina belongs in jail He is a criminal-civil lawsuit not withstanding.

  36. GDMiller says:

    Sue him big time. This whole thing is fishy. Estranged wife. Carpenter boyfriend. Fire embers. Kids “out of the way.” Smells of conspiracy if you ask me. Sue the boyfriend and then he’ll spill the beans…implicating the wife as well. Only a matter of time before the truth comes out of you ask me.

Comments are closed.

More From CBS New York

Get Our Morning Briefs

Listen Live