Page 140 - CFDI Guide

there was no criminal history or any report of criminal activity – including as a suspected pedophile or

sexual assailant. The decedent was well known in the community, including his homosexuality, with no
indications of moral turpitude. Law enforcement found no pornographic material in the bunker; they did

find material in the decedent’s house – the juveniles stated they had never been in the house. In the
bunker was found alcohol and marijuana. At autopsy the decedent was negative, and the juveniles were

never tested.

The civil case was settled, and the juveniles were either convicted or reached a plea agreement.

Client Poisoned by Dental Professional (Expert Consultation)
Our agency was retained by an individual who stated they were poisoned while at a dental appointment as

a matter of a corporate contract murder over intellectual property. The client was pursuing both civil
remedies and criminal charges. The circumstances were unusual and plausible as reported.

The client stated being poisoned with a high volume of fluoride at a dental appointment. The client had

been a long-term patient, and had requested no use of fluoride during any treatments. The next day the
client had rust colored urine, froze the urine, and sent to a laboratory for testing. The symptoms spanned

several days, and no medical consultation, diagnosis or treatment was made. The client did previously
consult with a forensic pathologist, by phone, and provided a partial transcript of the conversation – no

consultation was made, citing caseload. In the conversation, the forensic pathologist stated the client was

lucky to be alive after being told of the toxicology levels indicating fluoride poisoning. However,
conversation continued with the forensic pathologist stating he was not an expert and could not help. The
‘lucky to be alive’ has no context, and in follow-up was determined to be a general statement to the

results.

We consulted additional forensic experts, who were concerned with an unknown source for the urine

sample and the uncommon knowledge to test for fluoride requires an immediately frozen sample (this was
not known to us – emphasizing the importance of additional expert consultations). Therefore, the

laboratory tests could be misleading. Further, an additional expert calculated the laboratory findings to the
specimen information submitted and found discrepancies leading to a conclusion the urine had not

metabolized prior to collection, and the levels would otherwise be within normal ranges. We then
consulted with the testing laboratory, and was informed the tests are done as directed on specimens

provided – they cannot verify collection methods or chain of custody prior to their own receipt and
process. Further, the levels determined would have been fatal many times and had not been seen before.

118 | P a g e