The last time Fiocco was seen alive was early in the day on March 25, 2006 in his dorm room after attending an off-campus party for the better part of the night. His friends said they saw him drinking at the party, so it is assumed that he was possibly drunk the morning he returned to his dorm. After being seen in his dorm, no one saw him leave the room or the building
Three days after his disappearance, state police were brought in to find out what happened to him. What they discovered was a large amount of blood around the Wolfe Hall trash compactor, according to the lawsuit. By the time the police had discovered the blood, the trash was already being hauled via a truck to a landfill in Bucks' County, Pa., which is where Fiocco's body was found four weeks after his disappearance.
The lawyer for Fiocco's parents, Christine P. O'Hearn, has said the investigation revealed that Fiocco's death was senseless and should and could have been prevented. A spokesman for the college, Matt Golden, said that the school's administrators had not yet been presented with the lawsuit, so they have not been able to offer any comment about it. However, Golden has expressed sympathy for the family on behalf of the school and has acknowledged that the pain is enhanced due to the fact that no one knows exactly how Fiocco died.
As for what happened to Fiocco, authorities have not been able to determine. It has yet to be found whether his death was truly an accident or a result of some sort of crime. Captain Al Della Fave, a spokesman for the state police has said the doors leading to the trash compactor room were not locked the night of Fiocco's disappearance, but what happened to the remains of Fiocco is a mystery. There is still a detective investigating the case, hoping for some kind of lead that may help them determine exactly what happened the day Fiocco disappeared.
READ MORE CRIMINAL LAW LEGAL NEWS
The parents have stated in the suit that they believe the college to be at fault because the doors to the trash compactor room should have been locked when they were not. The suit also alleges that the doors on the trash compactor itself, as well as hinged lids on top of the container portion were not locked. It is possible that certain companies and employees who have worked with and encountered the trash compactor could also be targeted in the case while searching for the party truly responsible for the unsecure trash compactor. It is very likely that those who have to frequently work with the machines will be called to testify in the case.
By Ginger Gillenwater