Grieving family calls for public accountability in ongoing investigation of son’s death
Press release from the Lancaster Family
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – As a grieving family and community, we’re publicly seeking assistance and accountability regarding the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) ongoing investigation into the tragic death of our 18-year-old son, Malachi Lancaster, on December 8, 2024.
Nearly seven months have passed, and our family remains in deep sorrow, carrying not only the burden of loss but the anguish of unanswered questions and a frustrating investigation process. Malachi’s death certificate continues to read “under investigation.” Despite months of waiting, we feel no closer to understanding what truly happened that day.
Out of respect for the investigative process, we initially kept our concerns private, trusting that FWC would handle this matter with care, transparency, and professionalism. We refrained from inviting public scrutiny or applying external pressure in hopes of preserving the integrity of a thorough and impartial investigation. However, the ongoing lack of clear communication, coupled with troubling inconsistencies, has left us with no choice but to seek help from the press and the public to move this case forward, give us answers, and ensure accountability.
We are urgently requesting the public release of the full investigative report, including:
- DNA and ballistic reports
- 911 call recordings
- Body and dash cam footage
- Forensic photographs
- Witness statements
- All documents and evidence used in the investigation
- Malachi’s personal items that were on his person, especially his phone
Additionally, we call on FWC to address the following unresolved concerns:
1. Conflicting Witness Statements:
The sole witness, Malachi’s friend and the only person present during the incident, initially told Alachua County Sheriff’s Deputies that Malachi fell from a tree stand, causing his rifle to accidentally discharge. However, just hours later, in a statement to FWC, he changed his account, claiming they had finished hunting and were walking back to the car, with him being 10-15 feet ahead of Malachi, when he heard a gunshot behind him. When our family questioned the conflicting versions given within the same evening, an FWC Lieutenant dismissively replied, “Why does it matter?” It does matter, because such contradictions cast serious doubt on the credibility of the witness and should have prompted deeper scrutiny. Why were these inconsistencies not thoroughly investigated?
2. Medical Examiner’s Report:
Malachi sustained a close-range gunshot wound to the left posterior flank. The bullet entered in between the 11th and 12th rib, traveling from the back to front, upward left to right, through his kidney, liver and heart, ultimately lodging in the left side of his sternum. In a conversation the day after Malachi’s death, the medical examiner told the family that Malachi’s injuries did not support the witness’s account of what he said happened. Despite this expert opinion, the lead investigator appeared to favor a speculative “gotcha vine theory,” suggesting that a vine pulled the trigger of the rifle that Malachi was carrying. Compounding this, within the month after the incident and while the investigation was still active, the sole witness’s father cleared the area of all shrubbery and replaced it with rock landscaping, eliminating any opportunity for an independent forensic review of the proposed vine scenario. Why was the medical examiner’s professional assessment dismissed, and why was critical evidence allowed to be destroyed?
3. Delayed Investigative Steps:
As part of the investigation, the lead investigator obtained Malachi’s phone records to determine whether he had been distracted at the time of the incident. The records confirmed that Malachi had not been using his phone, which was later confirmed to be found in his pocket. When the family inquired whether the phone records of the sole witness had also been reviewed to establish timelines or communication activity, the investigator responded that he had not found it necessary, citing the witness and their family’s cooperation. Basic investigative steps, such as securing phone records from all involved parties, should be standard in any thorough and impartial inquiry. Why was there hesitation in collecting digital evidence from the only other person present at the time of Malachi’s death?
4. Scene Integrity and Presence of Witness’s Father On Scene:
During a meeting with the lead FWC investigator and his lieutenant, the family asked whether the father of the sole witness was present at the scene, as his name appeared in the 911 call documentation. The investigator responded that the father was not on scene and that his name was included only because his son was a minor. However, another individual who arrived to assist after hearing the gunshot later stated that the father was present while paramedics were attending to Malachi. This discrepancy raises important questions about the integrity of the scene. Why was the father’s presence allowed on what should have been a crime scene and why would the lead detective give misleading information to the family?
5. Potential Scene Tampering:
The rifle was found placed in nearby shrubs with a small vine touching the trigger, while Malachi’s body was positioned on a clear and open path, raising questions about the plausibility of the proposed “gotcha vine theory” proposed by FWC. Additionally, a noticeable indentation of a gun buttstock, approximately 2-3 inch deep, was photographed by forensics in the ground where Malachi was shot. This key forensic evidence was dismissed by FWC when questioned by the family, as the focus remained solely on the speculative “gotcha vine theory.” These physical details prompt concerns about how the scene was secured and whether any potential tampering occurred. Was the integrity of the scene properly secured, formally documented, and reviewed as part of the investigative process?
6. Hunting Law Compliance:
Given that the sole witness present with Malachi was a minor and using his father’s rifle, important legal questions arise regarding firearm access and supervision under Florida law. According to Florida Statutes, minors under the age of 16 must be supervised by a licensed adult while hunting, and all hunters born after June 1, 1975, are required to complete a state-approved hunter safety course before hunting with a firearm. Was the minor in possession of the rifle properly certified through a hunter safety program? Did he have legal authorization to use the firearm without direct adult supervision? Furthermore, was the unsupervised hunting activity on private property, reportedly permitted by the landowner, conducted in compliance with state hunting and firearm regulations? These are critical questions that must be addressed to determine whether proper legal protocols were followed in the events leading up to Malachi’s death.
Our only goal is what any parent in our position would seek: truth, transparency, justice, and peace. We are asking the press, the public, and those in positions of authority to help us shine a light on this case and ensure that it is not quietly dismissed or mishandled.
We will not stop seeking answers until we know that everything possible was done to honor our son’s life and uncover the truth about his death.