Murder results in tampered evidence

Tampered Evidence?

What if a critical fact Sheriff Snaza has reported to the public about the killing of Aron Christenson and his dog Buzzo was fabricated? Dr. Brandy Fay, who first examined Buzzo at the request of the Sheriff's office, determined that Buzzo did not die of a gunshot wound. Dr. Fay reported to the Sheriff's Office that Buzzo had been stabbed to death.

What Dr. Fay found contradicted the Sheriff's narrative that a frightened young man had shot at what he thought was a threatening wild animal and then was shocked to find he had killed a man. So shocked that he and his under-age girlfriend left the scene and reported to no one until after the bodies were found.

After his office received Dr. Fay's report, Sheriff Snaza sought a second opinion from a veterinarian not licensed to practice in the State of Washington, allowing her to necropsy the dog in the Lewis County Coroner's office. That veterinarian reported that the dog had died of a gunshot wound apparently without performing a tissue sample analysis to determine if what she had identified as the gunshot wound was post mortem or ante mortem. Her report fit with the narrative that both Aron and his dog were the victims of a tragic single shot.

But nagging doubts remained. Why did the investigating deputy call off the deputies who were on their way? Why did he think a dead man and a dead dog found in the woods at night were victims of an accident? Why did he conclude the bloody hole in the man's side resulted from being poked by a stick?

And then there was the opinion of Dr. Quinn, the pathologist who concluded that the one bullet theory did not make scientific sense. Now there were two respected doctors with one having determined Buzzo was stabbed, not shot, and the other finding no scientific proof of one bullet killing both Buzzo and Aron. Both professionals challenge the Sheriff's one bullet theory.

When Dr. Fay was informed of the gunshot findings by the second veterinarian, she was shocked. How could she have gotten this so wrong? So, as a responsible professional, she examined Buzzo a second time. And what did she find? A new wound which was not present when she first examined Buzzo. There was no bleeding at the new wound site which she determined was only consistent with the wound having been inflicted after the dog was dead.

Dr. Fay sent the tissue from the new wound to a lab for examination. The lab determined the wound was made after the dog died. With the lab's confirmation of her examinations. Dr. Fay concluded that the second wound was the result of someone intentionally tampering with the evidence, apparently to fit the evidence to the one bullet theory. Dr. Fay also found that the second wound caused a broken rib. There was no fracture of the rib shown on the X-rays made during Dr. Fay's first examination. Dr. Fay is adamant that the second wound was not there when she first examined Buzzo and that the lab results prove her to be correct.

Despite the odd handling and conflicting reports in the case, the case seemed ready to be buried with no unfortunate blowback on Sheriff Snaza or his office. In what had become a hotly contested November election, this was good news for the Sheriff. One shot, nice kid, no local family, just an unfortunate accident. Maybe it would all just go away.

That was just what happened until Aron's family took up the cause of seeking justice for Aron. With the election out of the way and a growing drumbeat of questions about why the confessed killer was not being prosecuted, the Sheriff forwarded the case to the Lewis County Prosecutor for charges. Unfortunately, the Prosecutor found that the investigation of the case had been so botched that even after returning the case to the Sheriff for further investigation and clarification, he did not feel he could prove a felony claim.

If Dr. Fay is correct, we now know that someone tampered with the evidence, evidently to create support for the one bullet theory. If this is correct, the obvious question is "who" and "how"? Dr. Fay has suggested that the second wound could have been accomplished by use of a rod with enough force to break the rib which was not damaged when she did her initial examination.

Among the questions which remain to be answered are: Did the deputy on the scene contact anyone before calling off the investigators who were one their way? Are there friendship or other relationships that affected the investigation beyond the political risks the Sheriff was facing? Why did the Sheriff tell another elected official that the shooter was a "good kid" within a week of the murder? Was the Sheriff concerned that Dr. Fay's finding that Buzzo was stabbed seriously undermined the shooter's explanation of what occurred that night?

Two things seem clear; Aron's family is not going away, and there is reason to doubt that any fair investigation of Aron's death will occur until an independent investigation is conducted. The obvious choice for independence is the Criminal Justice Training Commission which routinely handles law enforcement issues.

If it turns out that evidence was fabricated and that Sheriff Snaza knew of the fabrication, should he remain the Sheriff of Lewis County?

We reached out for comments to Sheriff Snaza several times for answers to our questions, but he did not respond.