Episode #52
The Investigator Who Took a Second Look: David Beers on the Pete Wlasiuk Case
The Investigator Who Took a Second Look: David Beers and the Pete Wlasiuk Case What happens when an experienced investigator takes a fresh look at a murder case and begins asking questions that may not have been asked the first time? In this episode of Wickedly Judged , I sit down with David Beers , an experienced private investigator and former New York State Police investigator, to discuss his career, the role of private investigators in criminal cases, and his involvement in the case of Peter “Pete” Wlasiuk . Pete was accused of murdering his wife, Patricia “Patty” Wlasiuk, after his truck ended up submerged in Guilford Lake in 2002. The case would eventually involve three murder trials, overturned convictions, disputed evidence, and serious questions about how evidence was investigated and presented to juries. David became involved in Pete’s case after years of litigation. Instead of simply accepting the conclusions of the original investigation, he went back to the evidence and examined the case through the eyes of an investigator. One of the most troubling issues we discuss involves Patricia’s diary . The diary had already played a role in Pete’s first conviction, which was overturned after an appellate court determined that diary entries admitted at trial constituted inadmissible hearsay. But information from the diary surfaced again during Pete’s second trial through a police evidence log. During deliberations, jurors specifically asked whether they could consider that information. Less than ten minutes after being told they could, they returned a guilty verdict. Jurors later acknowledged that the diary information influenced votes during deliberations. David’s investigation uncovered another significant issue involving notes associated with the evidence. According to information discussed in our interview, jurors did not understand that certain notes they relied upon had been written by a detective rather than the forensic laboratory personnel they believed were responsible for them . Jurors later signed affidavits indicating that knowing the true source of those notes would have affected their verdict. That raises an important question: How differently might a jury evaluate information if they know who actually created it? David also takes us inside the process of independently reviewing a criminal investigation. We discuss physical and forensic evidence, documentation, investigative assumptions, and the danger of tunnel vision. Who collected the evidence? Who documented it? Who interpreted it? Were alternative explanations investigated? And perhaps most importantly: Did investigators follow the evidence to a suspect, or did they begin with a suspect and interpret the evidence around that conclusion? We also discuss what happens when an investigator reviewing another investigator’s work discovers information serious enough that he believes it needs to be reported, as well as David’s efforts to bring his concerns about Pete’s case to the attention of authorities. Pete’s second conviction was ultimately overturned, and he would eventually face a third murder trial. This conversation goes beyond the question of whether someone believes Pete Wlasiuk is guilty or innocent. It examines the integrity of the investigative process itself. Sometimes the issue isn’t whether evidence exists. The question is who created it, how it was interpreted, what the jury was told, what the jury wasn’t told—and what happens when someone finally goes back and looks again.
