Scenario 1: What If the Firearm Was Unintentionally Discharged?

Examining gaps in the timeline, physical evidence, and unanswered investigative questions surrounding Jaren Josh Guerrero Cruz’s death on April 1, 2023.

This blog explores questions and a possible scenario that may warrant consideration. I am not presenting them as factual findings or allegations of wrongdoing, nor am I asserting that any person caused or contributed to Jaren's death. The scenario is presented as a hypothetical sequence to be tested against the available evidence, not as a conclusion about what happened.

Patience.

It has been a while since I last wrote about my son Jaren's case. I stepped away for a time to focus on his life – who he was, the energy he carried, and the life he lived.

It feels like an eternity since I last saw his face or heard his voice, yet the heartbreak of his absence remains as heavy as if it were yesterday.

Time does not erase the truth about his death.

For more than three years, I have pursued the truth about my son’s death, turning to the Guam Police Department (GPD) to explain how his case was investigated and why important questions remain unresolved.

I may not know the full sequence of events or exactly how Jaren's death occurred. But not knowing every detail does not mean there is no truth. It means there are still questions that need answers.

In my earlier blogs, I laid out the facts, evidence, and questions surrounding Jaren's death. Now I want to take the next step: examining possible scenarios and asking whether the available evidence supports, contradicts, or rules them out.

These are not conclusions. They are possible sequences of events to be tested against the evidence.

The First Scenario: What if the firearm discharge was unintentional?

The question is not simply whether an unintentional discharge was possible. The question is whether investigators considered that possibility and tested it against the physical evidence.

Jaren was not alone in his apartment. The medical examiner ruled the manner of death undetermined. His gunshot wound; body position; the condition of the apartment; the sequence of phone calls; CCTV footage showing that two people, later identified as her parents, arrived at the apartment that evening; and other details should be considered together.

To understand this scenario, let’s look at the timeline.

What Happened During the Final Three Hours?

On Thursday, March 30, 2023, Jaren borrowed a steam cleaner from me. Two days later, on Saturday, April 1, the day of his death, he carried the steamer upstairs from his car at approximately 3:13 p.m. Around 6:00 p.m., Jaren died.

That leaves a critical window of approximately three hours. What happened during those three hours?

CCTV footage shows that the female identified by police arrived the previous evening carrying only a backpack. According to information the police shared, she spent the following morning and afternoon shopping and running errands with Jaren. From the CCTV footage I reviewed, I did not see anything that appeared to show obvious tension or agitation during those activities before their return to the apartment at 2:07 p.m. That is my observation – not a conclusion.

What happened after 3:13 p.m. is less clear. Four days later, on Wednesday, April 5, 2023, police verbally shared with me the account of what occurred inside the apartment provided by the female my son was with that day. 

That account should be examined against the physical evidence, timeline, and other available information.

What can the evidence establish about what happened inside the apartment during that approximately three-hour window?

What Was Happening Inside the Apartment?

When I went to the apartment on Sunday, April 2, the apartment appeared clean and organized. I found a small load of clothing in the dryer. Damp bathroom mats remained in the washing machine. I also observed that the damp bathroom towel was folded and hung differently from the way Jaren usually left it.

Any one of these details may have been completely ordinary. The clothing, the mats, the towel, and the overall condition of the apartment could simply reflect normal household activity. But when reconstructing a death, seemingly ordinary details can become relevant if they help establish a sequence of events.

The towel may mean nothing. The mats may mean nothing. The clothing may mean nothing. But if the condition of the apartment can help establish what happened and when, shouldn't those details be examined rather than dismissed? Taken together, they raise questions about what was happening inside the apartment.

Was anything being cleaned or moved? Was the firearm case moved from its usual location?

Was the condition of the apartment consistent with the accounts provided? Were possible signs of cleaning, movement, or disturbance investigated?

A Possible Sequence

One possible sequence is that, while cleaning or moving things around the apartment, someone moved the case containing the firearm and later handled the firearm. The circumstances of that handling remain unclear. It may have been out of curiosity, routine handling, or even some other interaction.

If the firearm was handled and an interaction occurred, could it have resulted in an unintended discharge? 

If Jaren believed the firearm might be loaded and attempted to intervene, then the movements of both people would become important.

The position of the firearm, the positions of the people involved, the angle of the weapon, the distance between the muzzle and Jaren, the bullet trajectory, and other physical evidence could help determine whether such a sequence was physically possible.

This is only one possible sequence. It is not a conclusion.

A scenario being possible does not make it true. The purpose is to determine whether the physical evidence supports, contradicts, or rules it out.

What Does the Gunshot Wound Tell Us?

Jaren's gunshot wound was located underneath his nose, with the shot reportedly fired from approximately 16–18 inches away. The location, distance, and trajectory raise important questions for reconstruction.

What position was Jaren in when the firearm discharged? What position would the firearm have been in?

Is the reported distance and trajectory physically consistent with an unintended discharge during an interaction? What does the trajectory establish about the relative positions of Jaren and the firearm? Were alternative positions and sequences tested?

Reconstruction is not meant to make the evidence fit a theory. It is to determine which theories are consistent with the evidence.

What Happened Immediately After the Gunshot?

The moments immediately after the firearm discharged may contain some of the most important evidence in the case. They may help establish what happened, what those present understood had happened, whom they contacted, what information was communicated, and whether the scene changed before police arrived.

According to the call log and information shared by police, the female who was with my son did not call 911. She called her parents. Her father then called the police.

The question is: Why did she call her parents instead of 911?

That question is not an accusation. People can react unpredictably during frightening or confusing events. Fear, panic, confusion, and impaired judgment can affect how someone responds. But the call to her parents is still part of the documented sequence of events.

What did she tell them? What did they understand? When were they contacted? What information was communicated to the police? Statements, phone records, dispatch records, and CCTV could address these questions.

The Ten-Minute Window

According to the timeline I have reviewed, the father called the police at approximately 6:19 p.m., reporting domestic violence. Her parents arrived at the apartment at approximately 6:27 p.m., about eight minutes later. At approximately 6:29 p.m., the GPD dispatcher reclassified the call from domestic violence to possible suicide.

What information changed the nature of the call?

What was communicated between 6:19 and 6:29? What did her parents know before they arrived? What did they observe when they arrived? What information did they communicate to the police?

These questions matter because the answers may help establish what was known, by whom, and when.

What Happened When Her Parents Arrived?

Questions also remain about what happened after they arrived. According to CCTV, the father remained inside the apartment for approximately three to four minutes before GPD officers arrived. Did investigators establish exactly when he entered? How long was he inside? What did he do?

It is my understanding that he went into Jaren's room, checked whether Jaren was breathing, and did not touch his body. I later learned that he has a military background. If that account is accurate, what he observed and whether he moved or touched Jaren are questions that can be examined against the physical evidence.

I also observed from the CCTV footage that the mother appeared to go upstairs before her husband, while he did not immediately rush upstairs after reporting what he understood to be a domestic violence situation.

That is my personal observation, not a conclusion about anyone's intentions.

At one point, the mother led her daughter across the street, outside the area captured by CCTV, rather than toward their vehicle parked directly in front of the building. Why?

What did each parent understand before arriving? What had she told them? What did they observe? What did they communicate to the police?

Those are questions that objective records and statements may help answer.

What Do the Phone and Dispatch Records Show?

I was told that when his daughter called him, her father had difficulty understanding what she was saying and remained on the line with her. I also understand that she told the police she had called her mother.

Did her father then hand the phone to his wife while he contacted police? Did her mother provide her own account? Do the phone records confirm the sequence?

These questions should be answerable, at least in part, through the available records.

The purpose is not to assume anyone's intent. It is to establish what was communicated, what was observed, and when.

How Did Jaren End Up Where He Was Found?

The physical evidence also raises questions about Jaren's body position and the blood patterns at the scene. Assuming the shooting occurred in the bedroom, where police found Jaren's body, there is a question about his position immediately after the shooting. A face-shaped bloodstain was present on the comforter near the front edge of the bed. If Jaren initially came to rest face down there, how did he come to be found in a different position?

Jaren was found lying flat on his back, with his head near the dresser, his hands open and palms up, and his feet tucked under the bed frame.

How did he get there? Was he moved? If so, when? Was his position altered before or after anyone attempted to provide assistance? Could the blood patterns help reconstruct the sequence?

I do not know whether Jaren was moved. I am asking whether the physical evidence can establish whether his position changed after the gunshot.

What About Jaren's Dominant Hand?

Another discrepancy concerns Jaren's dominant hand. Police told me that the female he was with reportedly described Jaren as right-handed. My son ate, wrote, and did most things with his left hand. I cannot say why she described him differently, and the discrepancy doesn't prove her account was false.

But it is significant enough to ask whether it was documented and investigated.

Was the reported handedness compared with the physical evidence? Were fingerprints, gunshot-residue patterns, blood patterns, firearm positioning, and other available forensic evidence evaluated for what they could establish about how the firearm was handled?

The question is not simply whether someone should be believed or disbelieved. The question is whether the account was independently tested against the evidence.

Can the Timeline Be Independently Verified?

I previously questioned whether the approximately eight-minute interval between the 6:19 p.m. call and the parents' arrival at approximately 6:27 p.m. on CCTV was consistent with the circumstances, partly based on my own experience living in the same village as her parents at the time.

But my personal estimate should not determine the timeline. The objective evidence should.

CCTV, phone records, dispatch records, vehicle information, and call times may allow investigators to establish what they can about those eight minutes.

That principle applies throughout this case: where objective evidence exists, it should take precedence over assumptions.

What This Scenario Raises

An unintentional firearm discharge is one possible explanation, but it is not the only one. And the fact that something is possible does not make it true. That is why I am presenting this scenario.

I am not asking anyone to accept this sequence as what happened. I am asking whether it was considered and tested against the physical evidence.

If this scenario is inconsistent with the evidence, then the evidence should demonstrate why. If another scenario better explains the evidence, the investigation should establish that.

If important questions remain unanswered, they should not simply disappear because a case has been closed.

I am not trying to replace one unsupported narrative with another.

I am asking what the evidence can and cannot establish. I am asking what happened during the final hours of my son's life. I am asking what happened in the minutes after the firearm discharged.

I am asking whether the physical evidence is consistent with the accounts that were provided. And I am asking how the investigation reached its conclusion when significant questions remain unanswered.

If there is information I do not have, I want that information brought forward. If my understanding of any part of these events is wrong, I want to know that too.

Jaren Deserves the Truth

After 1,284 days, I am not chasing assumptions. I am seeking to understand what happened to my son.

GPD's stated mission includes protecting life and property, preventing and investigating crime, and maintaining public order. It also identifies integrity, excellence, accountability, cooperation, and problem-solving.

Those principles matter to me because they matter to every family that must place its trust in law enforcement. I am asking GPD to examine the totality of the evidence, resolve the unexplained gaps, and provide transparency about how the conclusion in Jaren's case was reached.

If the evidence supports the conclusion, show how. If the evidence contradicts it, address that. If important evidence was overlooked, examine it. If alternative explanations were considered and ruled out, explain what evidence ruled them out. If the available evidence cannot establish what happened, acknowledge that uncertainty honestly.

I am not asking for a predetermined answer. I am asking for a thorough, impartial, and evidence-based examination.

Jaren deserves nothing less. And I will continue asking questions until I understand what happened to my son.

If it were your child, what would you do?

A Note About This Series

Throughout this series, I will distinguish between documented information, my personal observations, information reported to me, and what remains unknown. When I present a possible sequence of events, I will identify it as a scenario for examination rather than a statement of what happened. My purpose is not to present speculation as fact or to lead readers toward a predetermined conclusion. It is to identify the questions that remain and examine what the available evidence can and cannot establish.