Page 148 - CFDI Guide

decomposed state, clad in clothing last known to be seen in.

Independent investigation determined that both the official law enforcement investigation and death

investigation were deficient in following standard protocols, from evidence collection to scene
documentation. Witnesses provided different statements over the course of the investigation and

multiple interviews. These statements were mixed and matched by law enforcement and prosecution to
present one statement that purported to satisfy the theories of the crime and elements of the

charges. However, multiple deficiencies were identified and presented.

In analyzing the decedent’s injuries and defects in the clothing, it was determined that multiple weapons
were used, to include a stiletto style dual sharp-edged, single sharp-edged with a distinct blunt/flat

opposite edge blade, and ingle sharp-edged with a smaller or narrow opposite edge blade. The primary
witness for the prosecution provided information that one weapon was used among multiple assailants,

including himself. There were distinct locations of use of specific weapons. He further described specific
injuries that were inconsistent with the analysis. Investigation also determined that the decedent was

likely alive, possibly unconscious, at the time of transport and deceased when left at the remote location.

During jury selection, the defendant was offered, and accepted a plea, from 1st-degree / death penalty to
second-degree.

Criminal Defense - Child Sex Assault (Legal Investigation)
Our agency was retained by counsel on behalf of the defendant. In reviewing the available prosecution
discovery, it was immediately determined that the official investigation was deficient and poorly

conducted; it was incomplete.

The initial investigating officer followed procedure in taking the report and conducting initial interviews.

He also contacted the on-call detective, who did not respond. A detective was assigned to the case after
several days. Several key investigative opportunities were missed. These opportunities were neglected

with charges brought forth by inconsistent statements of the victims and witnesses. Moreover, when the
assigned detective did take a role, efforts were spent only on validating the initial officer’s findings, and

not any independent investigation. It was only after the prosecutor’s office returned the case, requesting
additional investigation, was this done. This renewed investigation was limited to second interviews with

the reporting alleged victims, two persons not present at the reporting incident, and the uncharged
suspect, who had retained an attorney. The detective did interview a person present at the reporting

126 | P a g e