Page 1 - CFDI Program Findings Report Example

INCIDENT SYNOPSIS
Joe Victim stated arriving at the Defendant’s house at 1930 hours; the Defendant stated, as heard on the patrol vehicle
video/audio, arrival was at 2100 hours. Both parties stated approximately 1.5 hours elapsed from arrival to incident; this
would be more consistent with approximately 2100 hours.

The incident occurred at 7890 Any St., Your Town, in Small County) on 11/27/2021 and was reported at 2324 hours by a
911 call by Joe Victim and also within minutes by the Defendant.

Only the Defendant and Joe Victim are reported non-law enforcement parties and witnesses to this incident.
Defendant: John Defendant
Joe Victim: Joe Victim

OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL OBSERVATIONS:
The following is a synopsis of relevant elements noted in the review. This review is based on the provided official
records, reports and photographs of the Small County (State) Sheriff’s Office. This review is without the personal
inspection of the evidence, including instruments reported to have been used in this incident.

There are deficiencies in the official investigation including deviations and exclusions giving rise to the concerns noted
herein. Of elevated concern is the manner in which the Defendant and Joe Victim were each interviewed, the use of
coercion of the Defendant to agree with incorrect information and leading questions of Joe Victim to answer questions
in a manner consistent with incorrect information, non-disclosure of photographs and diagrams used in interviews,
arrest without probable cause or conducting and completing a competent investigation, and misinterpretation of
forensic evidence which significantly impacts the application of the evidence.

Investigation and Scene
• After extensive leading questions by Investigators, Joe Victim agreed the Defendant stabbed him twice with a fish
rd
fillet type knife, knife hit wall on 3 attempt (no defects found in the wall, discrediting Joe Victim per the stated
purpose in the search warrant affidavit.
• Defendant stated Joe Victim attacked him with butcher knife. This knife description never changed until
Investigators inaccurately showed the Defendant only the fillet knife could cause the injuries (see below).
• The Defendant was arrested 11/28/2021 @ 0210 hours. This was prior to first attempting to interview Joe Victim on
11/28/2021 @ 1435 and conducting the interview at 1643 hours. This was also prior to obtaining a search warrant
for house on 11/29/2021 @ 1000 hours.
• Investigators inaccurately stated to the Defendant the fillet knife had more blood than the butcher knife, which they
inaccurately stated had only a few drops of blood.
• The butcher knife had 90-degree blood drops and may indicate the bleeder was directly over knife.
• During a video recorded interview an Investigator asked the Defendant to demonstrate his actions, using a piece of
paper and while handcuffed. Reports stated as support for probable cause the Defendant could not demonstrate the
actions he stated. The Defendant made reasonable efforts under persistent contradictions of the Investigator. These
actions can be easily demonstrated.
• The Defendant stated blade was upside down when he grabbed it [supported by his injuries and Joe Victim clothing
defect].
• During this same interview, the Investigator told the Defendant he spun the knife and the Defendant repeatedly
stated he did not, it was momentum. The Investigator told the Defendant his version was not possible with the
Defendant cut, bleeding, jacked up, and decreased motor skills – its tough to do it. This exchange continued without
the Investigator attentively listening, only disagreeing, with the Defendant.
• During this same interview, the Defendant identified an image narrated to be the butcher knife. The Investigator
responded there would be bleeding all over knife and blade with an open wound and instantaneous bleeding. The
white handled fillet knife also had as little blood on the blade.
• No indication the scene was preserved or secured at initial response with execution of search warrant noting
Defendant’s mother unexpectedly present.
• Multiple photographs of scene during execution of search warrant document multiple areas of blood spatter.
• No collection of blood, or any evidence, from scene with search warrant.