Official-source comparison: This page summarizes two records generated during the same emergency response. A discrepancy is a reason for further review, not proof of criminal conduct.

OFFICIAL RECORDS · PRIVACY-PROTECTED EXTRACT

Police and EMS recorded different accounts of the same absence.

The Waterbury Police incident report and Trinity Health of New England EMS patient-care report were created from the November 21, 2021 response. The records describe different explanations for where Nicholas Forte had been before returning and finding Gina unresponsive.

What this establishes:The two official narratives are not identical. It does not establish why they differ, whether either was misunderstood, or whether the discrepancy reflects criminal conduct.

SIDE-BY-SIDE SOURCE READING

Two records. One response. Different stated activity.

The wording below is limited to the material needed to understand the discrepancy. Exact addresses, dates of birth, signatures, contact information, and unnecessary medical details are not republished.

OFFICIAL POLICE RECORD

Waterbury Police narrative

The police report states that Forte said he left the house at approximately 6:00 a.m. for work and returned at approximately 7:00 p.m., when he found Gina unconscious and not breathing on the couch.

Source
Waterbury Police Department case/incident report
Incident date
November 21, 2021
Source page
Supplementary narrative, page 1 of 1 within the packet
Publication class
Official record · privacy-protected summary
OFFICIAL EMS RECORD

Trinity Health EMS narrative

The EMS report states that Forte reported he left to go fishing that morning, attempted to contact Gina later in the day, and returned home to find her unresponsive on the couch.

Source
Trinity Health of New England EMS patient-care report
Date of service
November 21, 2021
Source page
Narrative, page 4 of 5 within the EMS report
Publication class
Official record · privacy-protected summary
UNRESOLVED

What requires investigation

The records do not explain whether the different statements resulted from separate conversations, misunderstanding, incomplete note-taking, a later clarification, or a materially inconsistent account.

  • Interview the report authors and relevant witnesses.
  • Compare original audio, dispatch, phone, work, travel, and location records.
  • Determine whether either account was corrected or supplemented.
  • Avoid treating the discrepancy alone as proof of guilt.

ADDITIONAL OFFICIAL DETAILS

What the response records also document.

01

Emergency response

Dispatch and first-response records document a medical emergency response on the evening of November 21, 2021.

02

Condition on arrival

The EMS narrative documents findings that responders considered incompatible with life and records a pronouncement of death at the scene.

03

Police observation

The police narrative states that the responding officer observed no obvious signs of trauma or foul play during the initial scene response.

04

Medical examiner contact

The police report records contact with the medical examiner and states that the case was declined at that time. This page does not infer why that decision was made.

Source-control note: The unredacted packet is preserved outside the public repository. Public release of the full scan requires a line-by-line privacy, medical, and legal review. Qualified attorneys, journalists, investigators, and experts may request controlled access.

RESPONSIBLE REVIEW

Read this discrepancy beside the complete timeline—not as a standalone verdict.