Page 3 - Findings_in_Expert_Consultations-AFI-LLC_Nov_2022

Findings in Expert Consultations – AFI-LLC – November 2022 3 of 5

These concepts, simple and natural to professional investigators, are important. It is also important for our clients - and
colleagues - to understand there are four basic outcomes to both legal investigations and expert consultations: 1) the
official investigation was competent, with the official findings consistent with the facts and evidence; 2) the official
investigation was not competent, with the official findings consistent with the facts and evidence; 3) the official
investigation was competent, with the official findings not consistent with the facts and evidence; and 4) the official
investigation was not competent, with the official findings not consistent with the facts and evidence.

Generally, we most often find 2 and 3 being the most common outcomes. This is not to state or imply there is any malice
- intentional wrongdoing - on the part of any persons. Mistakes happen, experience happens, and having the ability to
look after the fact and with all of the empirical evidence and circumstances before us, and because of the cases we
receive - those with great concerns, their may be some questions of competent investigations and findings. Keeping in
mind, those cases we do not receive, see or learn about are those in which the facts, evidence, and findings came
together as one - and those outcome are by far what happens. However, let's focus on the concerns of family,
defendants, and attorneys - those are in which they have founded concerns, enough so to contact our agency or yours.
Keep in mind, as professional investigators - our investigations have the very same possible outcomes; simply exchange
'official investigation' for 'legal investigation' or 'expert consultation'.

1) The official investigation was competent, with the official findings consistent with the facts and evidence
This really needs no explanation - all the pieces fell into place, and fit to form a clear picture of the event.

2) The official investigation was not competent, with the official findings consistent with the facts and evidence
The most common area of questioned competence here is the investigation did not follow a protocol, or was not
complete - perhaps both. Too often, in any investigation, the investigator or team find evidence that supports a theory,
or reaches a plausible conclusion, which ultimately lacks verification. This is not to state or imply the investigator was
lucky. Variables from skill and experience, to the evidence, did mesh together sufficiently for the appropriate findings.

3) The official investigation was competent, with the official findings not consistent with the facts and evidence
Similar to #2, and seemingly the opposite - this is the next most common area, but of questioned outcome. These false
or unverified findings are most often the result of not analyzing or interpreting the evidence correctly (see #4), whether
by cognitive bias or experience. Two persons or teams may conduct the same investigation, review the same facts and
evidence, and reach different conclusions. This is what is often seen the courtroom, with opposing investigators and
experts; even witnesses who see the same event differently, through no fault of their own.

4) The official investigation was not competent, with the official findings not consistent with the facts and evidence
This is the worst of the worst, and rarest of findings. From the course of the investigation, to the findings - there is issues
from beginning to end. Evidence may not have been found, collected, or tested - or any combination. Evidence includes,
not only trace evidence - but scene response and investigation; witness development, contact, and interviews; evidence
development, collection, and testing. This is not to say the full and entire investigation was not competently conducted;
however, it is to show that any component of the investigation not competently conducted and the conclusions,
therefore, were unreliable and without factual basis.

How do investigators best reach a conclusion that is both competent and supported by the facts and evidence? By
following a protocol to best of one's abilities and resources. We understand all investigations are limited based on
available time, resources, funds, and evidence. Any limitation to these - and there always will be - will have an impact on
the outcome. Other variables include the investigator's own experience and "commitment to conducting impartial,
objective, and ethical investigations as an advocate for the facts."

Thank You!

Copyright © 2022 Associates in Forensic Investigations, All Rights Reserved