Fact 3: The medical examiner stated that my son's gunshot wound is from an intermediate firing range of 16 to 18 inches.

Even with this information, there was insufficient scientific rigor and investigative follow-through to determine if a self-inflicted shot could occur at that distance, both in terms of physical possibility and human behavior. 

Intermediate-range gunshot wounds are rare in suicide cases and are widely recognized in forensic science as red flags that warrant deeper scrutiny. Research shows that firearm suicides are most often characterized by contact or near-contact wounds, typically within six inches of the body. Numerous forensic studies support this.

This is not a technicality.

Intermediate-range shots do not align with typical suicide patterns. When such a finding arises, especially in the presence of other physical or situational inconsistencies, it should trigger a more rigorous investigation. That did not happen in my son’s case. No forensic analysis was conducted.

When I met with the medical examiner months after my son’s death, he shared measurements of Jaren’s arm length – from the acromion (shoulder) to the dactylion (fingertip). He reviewed this data and concluded that in order to self-inflict a wound from 16 to 18 inches away, Jaren would have had to:

• Use both hands

• Fully extend both arms

• Twist the wrists

• Aim upward at his own body

Even at a shorter range, such as 14 inches, a shot would still require an unnatural, unstable, and biomechanically awkward posture.

So I ask: What forensic indicators have been thoroughly evaluated to definitively determine whether this wound was self-inflicted or inflicted by another? 

When I recently raised this again, I was told, “It could have been done with one hand or both, left or right.”

That vague, dismissive response does not meet the rigorous standards required by forensic science. Such speculation lacks a scientific basis and compromises the integrity of the investigation, disrespecting the pursuit of justice.  It is unacceptable and deeply insulting.

Was this theory biomechanically analyzed? Was the position reconstructed or tested using a forensic simulation?

To my knowledge, no.

What We Do Know and What Wasn’t Done

Published case studies indicate that a single-handed shot at that range lacks the necessary grip strength, aim, and trigger control. Meanwhile, a two-handed grip at full extension poses significant physical and ergonomic challenges.

Standard investigative protocols demand that such hypotheses not be accepted without:

• Rigorous testing 

• Clear supporting evidence

• Scientifically validated methodology

Determination of Firing Distance

Jaren’s case was not subjected to a complete forensic analysis. The one test conducted, requested by the medical examiner and not the investigator(s), was a distance determination. Accurate distance estimation requires a comprehensive, multi-method approach. The following standard protocols are well-established in forensic science literature and are routinely applied by law enforcement agencies worldwide:

1. Test Firing: The suspected firearm is fired under controlled conditions using the same type of ammunition. The resulting patterns – gunshot residue (GSR), soot, stippling, and pellet spread – are compared to the physical evidence on the victim’s body and clothing.

2. Chemical Analysis: Chemical tests detect, map, and measure the presence and density of gunshot residue on the skin and clothing to help estimate muzzle-to-target distance.

3. Wound Examination: Forensic pathologists visually and microscopically examine the wound and surrounding tissue to assess characteristics consistent with contact, intermediate, or distant gunshot wounds.

4. Post-Mortem Imaging: X-rays or CT scans reveal the bullet’s internal path, locate fragments, and identify radiopaque rings or other markers that may support distance estimation.

5. Pellet Pattern Analysis: In shotgun cases, the spread of pellets is measured and compared to test patterns, helping estimate firing distance through mathematical modeling.

   
   

Each method provides only part of the picture. A reliable conclusion can only be drawn when all evidence is analyzed together by a qualified forensic expert.

What the Literature Says

A review of the forensic literature reveals no well-documented cases of firearm suicides involving a self-inflicted gunshot from a mid-range distance (14–18 inches) while using both hands in a fully extended, two-handed grip. 

Most studies describe suicide by firearm as involving contact or near‑contact wounds, usually inflicted:

• At short range

• With one hand

• Aimed at the head or chest

  
  

For example, in a 15‑year review of 1,704 firearm suicides in Bexar County, Texas, only 1.9% of head wound cases were classified as intermediate range. None involved a clearly documented two-handed, full-extension posture.

A 2020 case study in Academic Forensic Pathology described a staged suicide that was later determined to be a homicide. The case involved a death from a close-range or contact gunshot wound (GSW) where a firearm was found adjacent to or on the decedent, initially suggesting a suicide. Forensic investigation and autopsy findings, however, along with false narratives provided by witnesses/perpetrators, demonstrated that the scene was staged. Careful forensic analysis disproved the suicide narrative.

In general, scientific literature emphasizes that mid-range gunshot wounds, particularly those involving fully extended arms, are biomechanically unstable, physically awkward, and inconsistent with typical suicidal behavior. Studies in biomechanics and ergonomics indicate that grip strength and trigger control decrease significantly when the arms are fully extended, making it difficult to apply a steady trigger pull (often requiring 10 pounds or more) at that distance.

Interpretation Matters

Accepting an estimated firing distance does not require accepting a suicide ruling. In fact, the distance estimate should have raised immediate doubts about the plausibility of self-infliction.

• The required posture was biomechanically unstable.

• The grip and aim were ergonomically difficult.

• No reenactment or testing was conducted.

• And no forensic simulation was used to validate the theory.

The facts do not speak for themselves when they are not properly interpreted. In this case, the silence of a thorough forensic inquiry has been misinterpreted as certainty.

The Questions That Remain

Why has my son’s case been treated as a suicide, despite physical evidence that challenges that conclusion – without reenactment, without expert biomechanical analysis, and without the forensic testing required by investigative standards? 

Why has the possibility of homicide staged to resemble suicide not received the thorough, scientific consideration it deserves? 

GPD continues to presume suicide while disregarding the serious improbabilities.

When I challenged this narrative, I was told, “But it is possible.”

My response: It is no more possible than it is impossible. And responsible investigation demands more than possibility; it requires probability, evidence, and testing.