The Investigation That Never Happened
In the first post, we walked through how the exterior of the scene was handled: unsecured, assumptions made immediately, and critical evidence unprotected. The foundation was already cracked.
Now we move inside the truck — the place where answers should have been waiting.
1️⃣ Interior Inspection: What We Have vs. What Was Required
What we have:
A limited set of photos. No measurements. No mapping of blood inside the cab.
But these photos do establish a key fact pattern:
• No damage to the headliner
• No spatter or impact on the back glass
• No bullet strike inside the cab
• Blood located only on the driver’s door panel
A gunshot fired from under the chin, traveling upward, typically creates upward biological evidence.
The absence of that signature is inconsistent with the assumed trajectory and should have triggered deeper forensic testing.
What we know from work done by others — not police:
• Independent inspection confirms no interior bullet path
• Door panel blood documented — but not by law enforcement
• Recreation had to be done later by civilians
Why it matters
What happened to Alec is tied to the inside of that cab.
That space should have been the most scrutinized area, not the most ignored.
In summary
They recorded a body in a truck. They never investigated what the truck could have told them.
2️⃣ What the Photos Don’t Show
Photos exist. But they omit the details that turn images into evidence:
• No analysis of the driver’s door blood angle
• No documentation of direction of travel
• No measurement of Alec’s body position vs. spatter
• No imaging of the footwell for gravitational pooling
• No trajectory mapping
• No examination of hoody folds vs. claimed posture
• No analysis of stomach blood despite it implying movement
These omissions hide what should have been answered:
• Was Alec upright, slumped, or moved?
• Did blood travel into the cab… or out of it?
• Was a door open during the shot?
• Do body positions match gravity?
• Does blood on the abdomen align with immediate collapse?
• Do hoody folds reflect repositioning?
Why it matters
If the only meaningful blood in the truck is on the door, the physics of how it got there are crucial.
Police didn’t test those physics.
In summary
Evidence can’t speak when no one asks it a question.
3️⃣ The Story They Chose vs. Physics and Basic Context
They didn’t build the conclusion from evidence.
They built it from a statement — and never checked whether the physics agreed.
A — What the body says vs. their conclusion
Final photos show Alec upright.
The individual who found him stated he was slumped to the right and was pulled upright after a window was broken.
Blood on the stomach and hoody folds support post-shot movement, not a natural collapse.
Investigators never verified any of it.
B — What their documents claim vs. biomechanics
From the autopsy:
“The direction of the gunshot wound track was upward, front to back, and slightly right to left.”
“No bullet or bullet fragments were recovered…”
This is the agency’s own stated trajectory.
Yet a left-hand dominant person in a narrow cab would struggle to produce that exact angle without interior evidence of the bullet path.
Investigators did not attempt to reconcile hand dominance with gun orientation.
C — What the truck says vs. their accepted narrative
Reported version:
• Calls made to Alec with no response
• Window broken to gain access
• Body pulled upright
This sequence demands physical proof:
• Was the truck locked?
• Where is the broken glass?
• Was the body moved?
The passenger door was photographed unlocked.
No glass pattern documentation exists.
Repositioning was accepted, never tested.
D — What ballistics demand (and what’s missing)
Their own trajectory claim requires:
• Upward biological evidence on interior surfaces
• A bullet path inside the cab
• A recovered projectile or strike point
Instead:
• No interior strike
• No upward spatter
• No bullet recovered
• No trajectory strings
• No effort to reconcile the scene with the report
The trajectory exists on paper only.
Why it matters
The physical world contradicts the conclusion.
Rather than confront that, investigators ignored the conflict.
In summary
When the official trajectory cannot exist inside the photographed truck, the conclusion isn’t evidence — it’s a decision.
4️⃣ The Cost of Calling It Suicide Too Soon
The 911 call reported a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Dispatch echoed the same assumption.
The label was assigned before anyone saw the evidence.
That label drove everything that followed.
The Sheriff’s Office and Coroner passed the same narrative to the crime lab. No suspicious circumstances were listed.
The message was clear:
Don’t look for questions. This is already answered.
The crime lab then repeated the story back — and halted examination:
“In light of these findings and the report of the circumstances surrounding death, no further examination was deemed necessary.”
Not in light of the evidence.
In light of the story.
Because they assumed suicide, they skipped:
• Trajectory evaluation inside the truck
• Bullet recovery
• Analysis of body movement
• Verification of door + window sequence
• Gun handling / hand dominance testing
No physical truth was ever asked to confirm the conclusion.
They didn’t follow the forensic trail.
They followed the rumor.
Why it matters
The most telling evidence in this case wasn’t lost — it was never collected.
In summary
They didn’t end the investigation at the scene.
They ended it in the dispatch call.
The Illusion of Justice 