Page 3 - Investigative_Facts-AFI-LLC_Aug_2022

Investigative Facts – AFI-LLC – August 2022 3 of 5

In a homicide case the victim is found in the front yard, face down, with multiple gunshots to his back. The assailant ran
and the event was not visually witnessed, only heard by various neighbors hearing multiple gunshots. Some state there
were two shots, a pause, then one more; others state they heard them all rapid fire and didn’t count or had different
counts. From this scene investigation it is concluded the victim, who resided at the home, was walking to enter his house
and was surprised from behind, shot multiple times in a robbery attempt. Because his wallet, some cash and some drugs
were still on him, it is further concluded the assailant was interrupted – probably by neighbors – before taking these
from the victim. No firearm was recovered; three casings are recovered. A suspect is identified, arrested, and charged. A
preliminary hearing held and various law enforcement detectives testify to the above. This includes a neighborhood
canvass found no eyewitnesses, and no evidence of a robbery. The defendant was identified as someone who had
departed a bus at stop just one block from the house and was seen on the camera walking towards the house just
minutes before the shots were heard. When asked about the gunshot wounds and trajectories, no detectives could
answer these – only what they observed on scene, which were three gunshot wounds to the back, with one being
‘execution style’. The defendant was charged with first degree murder, as well as other charges (felon in possession of a
firearm, aggravated robbery, etc.).

Then the independent investigation happens.

In reviewing the law enforcement and medical examiner records, reports, and photographs provided by the prosecution
in discovery, several key facts are learned:
1. The defendant and victim did know each other.
2. The autopsy report showed the trajectory of two bullets from front to back – both to the chest, with one exiting
(perforating) without being recovered, and one recovered (penetrating); and one bullet was back to front and
also exited, and was recovered from the ground by law enforcement after the investigator found it.
3. From this, the sequence of events were at least two shots from the front first, followed by one shot from the
back after the victim had fallen to the ground.
4. Further trajectory analysis, with consideration of various possible movements of the shooter and victim, would
be completed and show the shooter directly in front of the victim and then standing approximately at the
shooters feet when he was on the ground.
These facts not only dispute – they completely disprove the official narrative of multiple gunshots from behind the
victim, surprising him. These facts of themselves do not tell anything more – they do not tell who the shooter was or the
motive.

Additional independent investigation is conducted, including a neighborhood canvass developing two additional
witnesses who also only heard the gunshots, two doorbell cameras recording the defendant in the direction from the
bus stop to the victim’s house, and reinterviewing reported witnesses. Additional witness statements included
information the victim may have been dealing drugs from his house, and had no set schedule. One reported seeing the
defendant at the house recently. Prior to trial, it was asserted the shooting was in self-defense. The defendant stated he
went to the victim’s house to buy drugs and the victim became angry when he did not have all the money the defendant
still owed him. The victim pulled a gun from his back and they wrestled for it. The defendant was able to get the gun –
he described as a black semi-automatic – and when the victim came at him he shot twice, then started to run – pointing
the gun at the victim on the ground and shooting again out of fear he would be chased. He then threw the gun in a
dumpster in an alley across the street.

The facts in this scenario did not change. How they were investigated and interpreted were. Additional facts were
presented from further independent investigation. These presented both perception and perspective, disproving the
prosecution’s theory and developing the defense theory. From this, the charges may be dropped or amended, a plea
offered, or trial to follow. How, and if, each of these plays out should be based solely on the facts – not only perspective,
not only perception – empirically in support of each other.

Thank You!

Copyright © 2022 Associates in Forensic Investigations, All Rights Reserved