Page 151 - CFDI Guide

Certified Forensic Death Investigator (CFDI) Program
Dean A. Beers, CLI, CCDI, CFDI-Expert and Karen S. Beers, BSW, CCDI, CFDI-SME
Associates in Forensic Investigations, LLC
Criminal Defense Investigation Training Council (CDITC) Accredited

enforcement. It is important to note that it is common for a firearm to be made ‘safe’, including removing
the magazine and any live rounds of ammunition. It was determined that all evidence was photographed

as found. The decedent was reported to have experience with firearms. It was considered that the
decedent retrieved the handgun and placed the magazine in the location found, then presented himself in

this final position with the intent to shoot himself. Also of consideration, it is not uncommon for an

inexperienced person to incorrectly believe that a semi-automatic handgun is unloaded and safe when the
magazine is ejected, then failing to check the chamber for a live round or to eject the same. The decedent
may have had suicidal ideations and contemplated the same while incorrectly thinking he had made the

handgun safe. This is still a suicide, although unintentional – his actions and motives are suicidal.

Independent investigation was provided as foundation for the primary investigation. Information was
turned over to investigating officials for further consideration.

Criminal Defense - Acquaintance 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 not properly
conducted; it was incomplete.

There are multiple points of consideration in the detective’s testimony at the preliminary hearing. The

detective incorrectly stated as fact information from the alleged victim’s initial statement and subsequent
interview, having different statements. The detective did acknowledge inconsistent statements of the

alleged victim when questioned by defense counsel. Moreover, the detective testified, consistent with his
reports, that he never visited the incident scene and had no personal knowledge of the layout, and he did

not either have or take his own photographs of the residence. He was unable to testify as to the accuracy
of the alleged victim’s statements based upon scene descriptions. Independent investigation revealed

that there were significant inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s description of events and not being
possible after visiting the scene and determining the actual layout.

Investigation and interview of witnesses also determined that the alleged victim did not consider the

defendant or the residence any threat to her after the alleged assault. She chose to remain, alone, in the
guest bedroom after the assault – although she knew from having drinks in the living room that she had an

unobstructed opportunity to leave the residence, or in the alternative climb out the opened bedroom

129 | P a g e