John:

I can see some of your point if you are conducting a review of the investigators conclusion, but what you seem to be saying is that the investigator may have information in this raw file that would help your client even to the point of impeaching the investigator’s testimony, is that correct?

I agree with not saving drafts of the reports, and understand your concerns as to not having all the information that was available to the other side because of the fact some information was omitted from the transfer of information to the report. What I have found, when I have had the ability to compare the raw data to the report is that the report will contain more usable information than the raw data. Most investigators have their own short hand, using one key word that they will later expand on when writing the report. There is no way I can understand these one word comments, but when it comes to the expansion of the word in the report the investigator will give me all the information I need and some times more than I asked for to evaluate the findings.

I have seen one post where the person gave a reasonable reason for retaining the raw information. It was done to preempt the other side’s attack. I agreed with his post that when it comes to court there is much weight given to perception of the information supplied by a witness. In this case the fact that the word “destroyed” is used give the jury or judge the perception there was some information available that the person did not want them to see. This is a reason I can accept to influence my decision. Then it comes down to, do I think I can adequately explain my process to where a reasonable person will not infer any wrong with my action.