
Shapiro arson suspect's family repeatedly tried to get help in the days before the fire
In the days before Cody Balmer allegedly set fire to the Pennsylvania governor's mansion, his family repeatedly called police and mental health agencies for help as his condition dramatically worsened, according to interviews with relatives and phone records shared with CNN.
But those officials all gave the same answer, Balmer's ex-girlfriend told CNN – that he didn't meet the standards for involuntary commitment and that there was nothing they could do.
Now Balmer, 38, is charged with attempted homicide, aggravated arson, terrorism and other crimes after police say his homemade Molotov cocktail attack early Sunday morning forced Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family to flee, severely damaged the mansion and left the public wondering about a motive.
Balmer did not enter a plea during an arraignment hearing on Monday. His attorney, Colton Whitener, told CNN prior to the hearing, 'We are declining any comments regarding the allegations against Mr. Balmer until more information is learned.'
Rosetta Welsh, who shares two children with Balmer, said in the days before the attack he alarmed his family by chewing on batteries, disappearing and acting erratically.
The Penbrook Borough Police Department confirmed to CNN that the agency received calls from Balmer's family about his conduct but that police weren't able to detain him. Because Balmer 'hadn't made any threats to himself or others it didn't meet the threshold for involuntary commitment,' the chief of police, Joseph Hogarth, told CNN.
During Balmer's arraignment, Magisterial District Judge Dale Klein asked him whether he had a history of mental illness. Balmer replied, 'that's the rumor but no ma'am.' He also denied any alcohol or drug abuse. When asked if he was on medication, he mumbled, 'medication that led me to different types of behavior.' Balmer's attorney did not immediately respond to questions from CNN.
Investigators believe mental health issues may be a factor, according to a source familiar with the investigation. Officials were struck by how casual and relaxed the suspect was throughout the ordeal, the source said.
Welsh said she has no doubt that his attack was motivated only by a mental health crisis.
'None of it was political at all. It wasn't a hate crime. It was simply a mental illness issue with him,' she said.
She said she wishes authorities had felt more urgency in forcing Balmer into care before he attacked the mansion.
'I don't know why you're not a threat to yourself or others when you're trying to eat batteries,' said Welsh. 'I don't understand why help was not given,' she added.
Welsh said she and Balmer were together for more than six years. Balmer had served a stint in the Army Reserves, working as a construction equipment repairer from April 2004 to June 2012, when he left the force as a sergeant, an Army spokesman confirmed to CNN. He worked in Harrisburg as an auto mechanic.
He and Welsh have been separated for nearly a decade but share custody of their two children. They always had a good co-parenting relationship, she said, and were in touch daily. Welsh said Balmer had unspecified mental health disorders, but that he was on medication that generally treated the conditions.
Last year, Balmer was admitted to the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, where he was treated for manic episodes over the course of a month, Welsh told CNN.
And in recent months, Welsh said, 'he has gone downhill.' She said that trend worsened last week, when Balmer began chewing on batteries and then soon after, vanished for four days, leaving Welsh to file a missing person's report.
Welsh said she called a Pennsylvania crisis line and the psychiatric institute three days before the attack, but was told the agencies couldn't do anything. Balmer's mother also called the emergency dispatch in Cumberland County, Welsh said.
Pennsylvania's Crisis Intervention team and the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment. Spokespeople at the Cumberland County dispatch also did not respond.
On April 10, the Penbrook Borough Police Department received a call from Balmer's mother who said her son had stopped taking his medication over a year ago and had not been in touch with her in several days, Hogarth said. She said while the lack of contact was not necessarily unusual, Balmer seemed 'irritable and agitated,' Hogarth added.
Balmer had gotten upset when his mother called the state's Crisis Intervention team because he did not want to be 'incarcerated' in a psychiatric facility, Hogarth said.
Although the agency was not able to involuntarily commit Balmer, an officer did call a hotel in Shippensburg where Balmer had called his mother; the officer spoke to the front desk, which said Balmer had checked out that morning and appeared 'fine,' according to Hogarth.
Then, early Sunday morning, police say Balmer climbed over a fence, broke into the governor's mansion and set the fire with a homemade Molotov cocktail he fashioned from lawnmower gasoline that he poured into beer bottles.
Later that day, Welsh said she got a phone call from Balmer.
'Rose, I did it … I'm the one who set the governor's mansion on fire,' Welsh said Balmer told her.
When Balmer said he couldn't turn himself in, he asked Welsh to do it for him.
'Everyone said he was not a threat to himself, or others, and they could not help and would not help. We were completely turned away by everybody' Welsh said.
Balmer's family was shocked by his actions, a sibling told CNN on the phone.
'I support Josh Shapiro. … I voted for him' said the sibling, who asked not to be named. 'I don't know what drove [Balmer] to this, I don't know what is going on in his head, but I am trying to stay as far away from this as I can,' the sibling added.
Welsh said Balmer was taken to a hospital Monday but moved to Camp Hill prison after his arraignment. She said she has not had any further contact with Balmer.
'Had he gotten the help … these actions would not have happened,' she said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'

44 minutes ago
Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction
Just over a year after Donald Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, an appeals court is set to hear the president's bid to move his case to federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has scheduled oral arguments Wednesday to consider whether to move the president's criminal hush money case from state to federal court. Trump was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct. Trump's lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included "official acts" undertaken while he was president, giving the president broad immunity for his actions and the right to remove the case to federal court. They say that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts -- which was decided after Trump was convicted in May -- would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction. "The fact that it was not until after the conclusion of his state criminal trial that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision defining the contours of presidential immunity -- including a broad evidentiary immunity prohibiting prosecutors from inviting a jury to probe a President's official acts, as President Trump's removal notice alleges occurred here -- supplies good cause for post-trial removal," Department of Justice lawyers argued in an amicus brief filed with the court. Trump decried the prosecution as politically motivated and successfully delayed his sentencing multiple times before New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, sentenced the former president to an unconditional discharge -- the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law -- saying it was the "only lawful sentence" to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land." "I did my job, and we did our job," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, said following Trump's conviction. "There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken." Bragg has pushed back on Trump's attempt to remove the case from state court, arguing that a case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing. "These arguments ignore statutory indicia that Congress intended for removal of criminal cases to happen before sentencing by anticipating that essential federal proceedings will take place prior to a final criminal judgment," prosecutors have argued. Trump's appeal will be heard by a panel of three federal judges, each of whom was nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents. With Trump's former defense attorneys now serving top roles at the Department of Justice, the president will now be represented by former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall of the elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. In an usual step, lawyers with the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Trump's request. "The United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal," they argued. If the appeals court grants Trump's request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Moving the case into federal court could also open up the possibility that Trump could potentially pardon himself.


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
LAPD pull CNN crew through police line as they disperse protesters
Tensions were high in downtown Los Angeles, as authorities tried to quell a fifth day of anti-ICE protests. CNN Senior Investigative Correspondent Kyung Lah was reporting on the ground.