A “Big Bag of Crazy” Found in Suspected Arson Case

 

On the night of Sept. 8, a staff member at San Angelo LIVE! went downtown to the Old Texas Theatre where San Angelo police had responded to a call about an individual on the roof of a neighboring building. As our staff member talked to one of the officers, a silver car with a man and woman pulled up and the female driver told the official, “There’s a car on fire! It’s going to explode, so you better get going!”

This fire was in the parking lot at 210 S. Chadbourne St.

With that warning, the officer called in the fire to SAPD Dispatch, and within moments, police units and a fire truck arrived at the scene in the parking lot next to the Dead Horse. Our staff member followed. However, by the time they arrived, a bystander had managed to put out the fire.

As officials began their investigation into how the fire started, they noticed something on the ground near the vehicle, a 2008 Volkswagen Jetta.

“There was a white cloth on the ground near the tank,” said the staff member.

Additionally, the driver of the car, a young woman, was crying and said, “This is the second time “that [expletive]” has done this!”

Apparently, the suspect was an ex-girlfriend of a man the woman with the VW was "seeing," and the current girlfriend thought that the suspect not only burned her vehicle twice, but she also slashed her VW's tires repeatedly.

Based on the complaint, testimony from the victim, witness, officers at the scene, video footage, and the investigations conducted by the Fire Marshal and Tom Green County Sheriff’s offices, this act of arson appears to be a conclusive crime of passion.

The Evidence at the Scene

At the scene, investigators did find the evidence that indicated arson played a role in the car fire, and on Sept. 11, 2015, Karla Steppe, an investigator with the San Angelo Fire Marshal’s department, filed an official complaint with the Tom Green County Justice of the Peace against Chelsea Jo Strube, 32, of San Angelo.

According to the complaint, Steppe had “good reason to believe and does believe and charge that Chelsea Jo Strube, Defendant, intentionally and knowingly [started] a fire by placing a white fabric into the gas tank along with a green plastic bottle containing a flammable liquid at a motor vehicle and igniting the flammable liquid with intent to damage and destroy a vehicle.”

Additionally, the complaint verified that the Jetta had a broken gas tank cover and burnt paint down the side of the vehicle below the gas tank.

“A piece of green melted plastic that resembled a plastic soda bottle was melted into the pavement of the parking lot next to the vehicle and a white piece of cloth with burned edges that appeared to have been remnant of a white T-shirt,” read the complaint. Also, the front passenger tire had been cut in “multiple locations,” and the tire was flat.

Another officer at the scene, Clinton Roebuck, observed smoke coming from inside the gas tank area upon his arrival, and he saw a flame directly underneath the gas tank of the vehicle. The smoke appeared to come from a “white rag” stuffed inside the gas tank. Officer Roebuck also observed the slashed front passenger tire.

The Witness Timeline 

In his statement, the witness, who originally notified the officers about the fire, told Steppe he and his girlfriend were attending a birthday party at the Dead Horse, and he pulled into the parking lot at 11:45 p.m.

As he drove around looking for a parking spot, the witness noticed an area next to the building between the victim’s Volkswagen and another SUV. That’s when he saw the vehicle fire and sparks falling onto the ground. He too perceived a piece of a white T-shirt, but it was in the gas tank and flames were traveling back towards it.

“The witness immediately backed his vehicle up, started to drive down the alley and saw a 2008-2010 model red Mustang parked about 30-40 yards down the alley with its lights off,” the complaint noted.

As the witness turned into the alley, the red Mustang turned on its lights, left in a hurry and turned right on Twohig. At that point, he notified the police officials nearby.

“The way the red Mustang was parked in the alley appeared suspicious to [the witness],” stated the complaint. “When [he] walked back to the parking lot where the vehicle had been on fire, he overheard people talking about a red Mustang.”

The Possible Diversion

At approximately 10:14 p.m., Strube was the witness who reported to police the individual on the roof east of the Texas Theatre, which was the call police officials and our LIVE! staff member had responded. It was while there that another the witness drove up and notified them of the fire.

Strube told SAPD Sgt. Clay Wieting that she was in the parking garage next to 25 W. Beauregard when she observed this individual. However, officials never found anyone on or near the theatre.

“The Defendant stayed in the area and spoke with Officer Walston and Sgt. Wieting and was identified by Officer Walston,” said the complaint.

Strube was also in contact with Public Safety Communications to advise police officers of updates. Sgt. Wieting observed that Strube drove a red Ford Mustang and spoke with her. When she left the scene, Strube drove east on Twohig and was last seen at the intersection of E. Twohig and S. Chadbourne, near the Dead Horse.

The security camera footage obtained from the O.C. Fisher Federal Building U.S. Courthouse, 33 E. Twohig, showed a vehicle, which appeared to be a later model Ford Mustang, turning east onto Twohig from the alley behind the Dead Horse at approximately 11:50 p.m. However, the time stamp on the video showed 11:56 p.m. Court Security Officer Harvey Barrera stated that the time stamp is approximately 6 minutes fast.

This was around the same time the witness reported seeing the Mustang in that same area.

The “Big Bag of Crazy”

When deputies with the Tom Green County Sheriff’s office and Steppe went to Strube’s residence in San Angelo, they identified her red Mustang in the garage. Strube told officials the Mustang did belong to her and gave them permission to search it.

During the search, the complaint said Steppe spotted items of interest.

“[Steppe] located a white canvas bag with the words ‘big bag of crazy,’ and inside the bag in the back passenger seat were miscellaneous items,” stated the complaint.

These items included the following:

  • two large bags of Duraflame kitchen matches;
  • one small matchbook of matches;
  • one plastic white and purple glove;
  • one kitchen knife with a serrated blade;
  • one kitchen paring knife;
  • one pair of Kobalt wire cutters;
  • one garden tool with a stainless steel blade and a blue and white handle;
  • and one flat screwdriver with a black and red handle.

The investigators also found a matching white and purple glove, latex gloves and a pair of wire cutters in the Mustang's passenger floor board. Additionally, Steppe located “a white lighted” in the drink holder in between the front driver and passenger seats; and inside the center console, Steppe found an orange Husky utility knife and black and pink lighters.

The complaint noted that “the items located in the red Ford Mustang would be items consistent with the damages observed on the victim’s vehicle.”

Since the original incident, San Angelo LIVE! has attempted to get comments from Steppe and the Fire Marshal’s Department; however, Fire Marshal Ross Coleman said they have no comment at this time due to the pending investigation and justice proceedings.

 

Note: The parking lot referenced in this story is owned by Trimble-Batjer Insurance.

Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily

The LIVE! Daily is the "newspaper to your email" for San Angelo. Each content-packed edition has weather, the popular Top of the Email opinion and rumor mill column, news around the state of Texas, news around west Texas, the latest news stories from San Angelo LIVE!, events, and the most recent obituaries. The bottom of the email contains the most recent rants and comments. The LIVE! daily is emailed 5 days per week. On Sundays, subscribers receive the West Texas Real Estate LIVE! email.

Required

Most Recent Videos

Comments

Reading articles on here is like little girl drama you never get the whole story. Why write the article if you can't get a report from all investigating agencies so you have all the facts. Now this will leave people to wonder what ever happen with this and you fine reporting will forget to do a follow up on it in the future.

You won't find any more than this on any otherlocal news source. The law gives out the same report to all news services.

If that's all the information they have than they don't need to report anything. These news sources make people look bad all the time and the system can't find enough to charge them with an actual crime. But the news never makes a public apology to the person they accuse when everything is dropped

Astonishing that the very alleged victim, who remains nameless in the posted story hides behind her most likely pseudonym "Concho Pearl" and her good friend, AKA author of this erroneous story posted less than 5 minutes after taking over as editor in chief.....be careful ladies who you put your trust in, a stupid man in this case, it can come back to bite you in the rear end. We miss you Chelsea Reinhardt!

(1) If a SA Live reporter was on the scene on September 8, why is this story just now getting published two months later? (2) Why were the names of the victim and ex boyfriend not published? Surely SA Live has had plenty of time to obtain that information... (3) What happened to Chelsea Reinhard? She was awesome! (4) Why was this the first story Brandy Ramirez chose to publish as editor in chief? Something smells fishy here... (5) To conchopearl, maybe the other local news sources chose not to report this story because they saw little value in a defamation lawsuit. Heads up, Ms. Strube. You sound like the victim here. I know I'll think twice before calling the cops to report a crime...

Stephanie, I think you may be confused. First, this was Chelsea's story. Since she left yesterday, she gave it to me to complete and all information comes from a filed complaint that is public record. Next, I do not know the victim nor do I know the suspect in this case. I do not have time for such things as this, and the people I hang around with are my kids and grandkids, so I think you may have me mixed up with another "Brandy." My good friends include my colleagues, old colleagues from ASU, and a few parents whom I have spent the last 13 years with because our sons played sports together. The rest live back in Arizona.

The story came about because one of our employees was out at the call for the alleged man on the roof, as I state in the beginning of the story. That's how we knew about this. Chelsea requested the complaint once we knew more.

Additionally, I left both the victim and witness's names out of the story as a matter of editorial choice. If people want to know the names, they can view the complaint. It is a matter of public record. Also, I was hired in July to resume this role when Chelsea made her move.

Hopefully, that clears up any erroneous misconceptions.

Regards,

Brandy Ramirez

 

(1) If a SA Live reporter was on the scene on September 8, why is this story just now getting published two months later? (2) Why were the names of the victim and ex boyfriend not published? Surely SA Live has had plenty of time to obtain that information... (3) What happened to Chelsea Reinhard? She was awesome! (4) Why was this the first story Brandy Ramirez chose to publish as editor in chief? Something smells fishy here... (5) To conchopearl, maybe the other local news sources chose not to report this story because they saw little value in a defamation lawsuit. Heads up, Ms. Strube. You sound like the victim here. I know I'll think twice before calling the cops to report a crime.

George, you can refer to my response above. In answer to your questions, here they are.

1) Chelsea requested information right after the incident, but could not get it until later when she finally got the complaint. She was hoping to get more updated information from the Fire Marshal's office. Since that wasn't forthcoming, she decided to go ahead and finally publish what she had this week.

2) The name of the ex-boyfriend was not in the complaint, and San Angelo LIVE! normally leaves out victim information unless the victim provides the story.

3)Chelsea Reinhard made plans to move on months ago, which is why Joe Hyde hired me. I would eventually transfer into the position, which took place yesterday.

4) I chose to write this story first because it was the story Chelsea had scheduled. She provided me with what she had. So smell away if you wish.

5) Whoever Concho Pearl is, the information is correct. The information provided to us is a matter of public record and if a news agency chooses to write about it, it would receive the same information. That's how it works. Maybe they chose not to write about it because they didn't know about it. Only our staff member was out at the first call that night, which is the case many times.

Hope your questions have been answered.

Regards,

Brandy

So the following was information contained in the complaint?

'“This is the second time “that [expletive]” has done this!” Apparently, the suspect was an ex-girlfriend of a man the woman with the VW was "seeing," and the current girlfriend thought that the suspect not only burned her vehicle twice, but she also slashed her VW's tires repeatedly.'

That part was not. That was what the victim told officials at the scene, which I stated in the article. Our staff member was out with officials at the fire after the witness reported it. If you notice, I do explain that in the beginning. Everything from the timeline on comes from the complaint.

 

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. You state the following in your article:
"Based on the complaint, testimony from the victim, witness, officers at the scene, video footage, and the investigations conducted by the Fire Marshal and Tom Green County Sheriff’s offices, this act of arson appears to be a conclusive crime of passion."
Would be safe for the reading public to assume that you and/or your staff has obtained statements from the all the investigating agencies listed and/or reviewed the investigation reports those agencies have conducted in connection with this incident? I'm only curious because the last paragraph of your article states that the Fire Marshal's office has declined to comment on the ongoing investigation. So, Ms. Ramirez, how is it that you are able to mislead the public by writing that this incident "appears to be a conclusive crime of passion"? In my opinion, " conclusive" is quite a strong word to use when referring to ANY person accused of a crime before the case has been presented before a jury and that jury returned a guilty verdict. Surely you wouldn't use such a term so loosely to deceive your readers or in a shameless attempt for this story to appear more scandalous in nature? Please clarify.

Dear George,
Just an FYI, reading comprehension classes are offered at ASU. Or if that is too hard you are always free to go back to reading the Sub-Standard Times for your news. If you had been able to comprehend the story you would have noticed several quotes from Fire Marshall Steppe included in the article. Now that a complaint has been made it would be totally out of line for the Fire Department to comment further. The article seemed to make sense to myself and several other friends who read it, so I am led to believe that either you didn't read the article, or you are a troll attempting to make Brandy's life miserable. I have read her other articles since she began and see no reason for your obvious rancor, so I have to go with troll. That being the case, please go back under the bridge from which you came.

Brandy, responding to these people will only make them worse. You will never be able to make everyone happy

Dear j G, An "internet troll" is someone who is someone who posts hateful, insulting, off-topic comments in an online community with the deliberate intent to provoke others into an emotional response. Nothing I have posted up until now was insulting or hurtful. Your comment, however, was off-topic and deliberately insulting. It appears you are the only "troll" here, so please take your own advice. Furthermore, my comments have been humble requests seeking clarification about this story. Surely Ms. Ramirez learned about journalistic integrity during her tenure at the prestigious Kaplan University? If not, please allow me to cite the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists: "Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should: – Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible. – Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy. – Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story. – Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story. – Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness. – Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. – Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast." Since Ms. Ramirez has failed to answer any of my questions, I am forced to assume she either doesn't have the accurate information from credible sources or she simply doesn't care that she's blatantly disseminating a misleading "short story" to the public and calling it news. Now, Ms. Ramirez can choose to take your advice and not respond, or she can prove she has a bit of journalistic integrity and stand behind her story by responding to the public's request for clarification.

Regards,

George

George,

You are indeed correct about journalistic integrity, which is why I have not responded to your additional "jabs." You see, Chelsea has been researching this since the incident started, and I was present for a lot of that research. The officials we have spoken to have provided a lot of information, and the phrase "crime of passion" is based on that information, so I do not retract the statement. You have to realize that just because we write someone has no comment at this time, that doesn't necessarily mean information hasn't been provided. It simply means these officials aren't prepared to go on the record at this point, which will be the case soon enough. When that happens, I will definitely provide that attribution.

Next, I am a writer who happens to be writing journalistically, so my ultimate goal isn't to destroy or do "whatever it takes" to get a story. I am here to do a job, and I will do it. Chelsea had this story scheduled for the day it was printed, and I followed through with her wishes before she left.

You talk about integrity, but here's the hypocrisy in that. You and Ms. Goodman are attempting to discredit me because you are friends to Ms. Strube and/or her family. This I know because it's been brought to our attention. So you can continue with your fallacy-based jabs, including Kaplan. There were many of us professors who didn't know about what was taking place. All we did was teach, and when we learned what was happening, many of us quit. Sorry though, I digress. That's an entirely different subject.

Because you are friends of Ms. Strube or her family, that is the primary reason I did not respond. No matter what I say, you will continue. As I said, I have nothing to prove. I don't know the victim, nor do I know the suspect, so I have no personal stake in this story. However, this is an arson case, and whether it was Ms. Strube or Joe What's-His-Name, it would make no difference. Our guy was out there that night, and we will cover it regardless. The only reason this wasn't published sooner is because we had to wait a longer time than usual to get the complaint because of political b.s. associated to this case. I can say if a Joe WHN did commit this arson, the story would have been written long ago, and a court hearing would have taken place. Chelsea, who covered the Police and Courts beat, would have covered that as well, which I plan on doing.

If Ms. Goodman is representing Ms. Strube, she is welcome to contact me to set up a time and Ms. Strube can tell her side of the story. I have no problem with that. 

Making jabs at me, or trying to discredit me by associating me with some woman who goes to a local bar and dated some guy (not sure all the particulars) is pretty similar to what you're accusing me of. I have been to maybe two bars in the last year, and that was with my husband (we are celebrating our 20-year anniversary this week). I can assure you we only go where Tejano music is playing, but that happens maybe once or twice a year. He and I spend what little quality time we have with our kids and grandkids. 

You can continue to jab or try to discredit me. That is your right. This will, however, be the last time I do respond. Every story we write is a matter of public record, and any time there is an arson case, a bomb threat, a dead body, and well, you get my drift, we will write about it.

 

WOW, that "pot" should not go there. Did you, schedule a time to get the other side of the story? Throwing stones makes for a lot of broken glass to clean up. Just saying.

Is that Stephanie Goodman the criminal defense attorney? I wonder... speaks volumes for professionalism.

Ms. Ramirez, While I cannot speak for Ms. Goodman, I neither know Ms. Strube personally, nor am I friends with anyone of her family members that I know of. I am sure that if you were to ask Ms. Strube and her family, they would all tell you this same face on the record. Therefore, I am forced, once again, to question your sources or if your organization is even privy to any accurate information at all. I can't imagine how any of my questions seeking clarification from the statements made in this article gave you the opinion that I'm seeking to discredit you. I think you are doing a fine job of that yourself. However, I do appreciate you finally responding and stating so publicly that you have received a great deal of "off the record" information regarding this case from officials involved in this active and open investigation. I have no doubt their superiors will be interested to learn this. Best of luck as editor in chief.

Regards,

George

live, Sun, 11/15/2015 - 20:04

"George"--

It is not uncommon for us or any other news organization to report on an official complaint. Case-in-point was the complaint against the teacher in Grape Creek who was having sexual relations with a student. We weren't the first to report on that, the Standard-Times did four minutes before we did. I was holding the story in case she was arrested. But we had the story cocked and loaded in case SAST tried to scoop us. They did (by four minutes), even before the teacher was arrested. We drowned them out right after they posted it, so many folks think we broke the story.

This is the exact same thing. Brandy's source is an official government record that even you can obtain with a FOIA request.

My daddy told me to always keep my powder dry. This isn't all we have on this story; there's so much more. So please, continue to defend your client on the Interwebs. Eventually, we'll have to keep score, right?

Joe Hyde
(My real name, BTW)

P.S. The teacher in Grape Creek pled guilty. We should have published the story two weeks prior when we originally had the complaint.
 

 

Post a comment to this article here:

X Close