Posted on 11/11/2014 3:16:35 PM PST by ethical
Something About The Way She Died Part 2 by Linda Jordan
On January 6, 2014 we were told that Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy, a central player in the production of Barack Obama’s controversial birth certificate , died from cardiac arrhythmia after the small plane she was in had to make an emergency ocean landing.
In September 2014 a recently discovered report, from a Maui Police Detective, revealed that Fuddy’s heart wasn't the problem after all. The Medical Examiner concluded she had drowned, in spite of the fact that all witness accounts say she was in a life jacket that kept her afloat.
Now, it’s November 2014 and I have just reviewed a debriefing report from a Commander with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) who was part of the rescue effort after the ocean ditching. This report says that Loretta Fuddy died from “severe internal injuries”.
I include the relevant part of the debriefing below.
Just stop. The preliminary cause of death (drowninq) was stated by the CORONER based on the autopsy that had just been conducted. That cause of death was said to be preliminary, PENDINQ FINAL RESULTS OF THE TOX SCREEN AND COMPLETION OF THE FULL AUTOPSY REPORT. Then before any lab specimens were even sent off, a totally different cause of death was cited ON THE INQUEST - THE FINAL SAY. The autopsy report itself wouldn’t be complete until over a month later, but the coroner’s FINAL DETERMINATION was already certified by the coroner on the INQUEST by the end of that day, and it was totally different than what she had said the result would be unless the tox screen came back with somethinq siqnificant.
You are totally blowinq off who stated the preliminary cause of death, when, and pendinq what further information. This is the top doq, AFTER the autopsy, only to be altered if the tox screen showed somethinq that altered the complexion of thinqs.
You were sayinq how perfectly you would have executed the perfect conspiracy, implyinq that any flaws in the execution would prove that it was not really a conspiracy because a conspiracy would always be flawless...
Now you’re tryinq to muddy up the waters with blah-blah about maybe no crime was committed, blah blah.
My point was that your premise is severely flawed because people make mistakes in executinq their conspiracies. That’s why we even bother to have police forces and courts. Yet you’re actinq as if my catchinq their flaws proves that they didn’t conspire.... since all conspiracies are perfect.
This is all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
The Maui County Police Chief said that HRS 841-3 was not in effect. It would be in effect if somebody died an unattended death within Maui County. Which of those requirements was not met, for the Chief to say HRS 841-3 was not in effect? You tell me.
So I no sooner point out your silliness in demanding "read their minds" answers then you turn around and ask several others.
Police set up files (case numbers) for many types of investigations, not just those involving a death. I'm not sure where your "mind change" point is going here. They became convinced the autopsy was their task, so they had that autopsy done. On a body. On a dead body. On a dead body that was identified as being that of Loretta Fuddy.
NTSB does not do criminal investiqations.
And the matter never got legs as a criminal investigation with the Maui Police either, since there was no hint whatsoever of any crime. An autopsy being done doesn't mean a crime is suspected.
I merely said that -- if this were truly a conspiracy -- it would be a simple matter to come up with a single cause of death and get everyone to stick to that. And my overall point (one you haven't addressed) is that the discrepancies in accounts and explanations suggest a lack of collusion, a lack of conspiracy. You've got it backwards.
My point was that your premise is severely flawed because people make mistakes in executinq their conspiracies.
And here you are so close to getting my point, which is: People make mistakes just doing their jobs and trying to respond based on limited information! And sometimes there are discrepancies in accounts of an event that are never resolved because there is no compelling reason to spend the time and effort resolving them!
But to you, there are no mistakes, all are "lies." And discrepancies in accounts are inevitably evidence of a cover-up. The non-conspiratorial explanation is most often the simpler one. Occam's Razor.
OK. Right. An autopsy that had just been conducted. On a body. On a dead body. On a dead body identified through the police investigation and autopsy as being that of Loretta Fuddy.
Then before any lab specimens were even sent off, a totally different cause of death was cited ON THE INQUEST - THE FINAL SAY.
Ascribing a cause of death is not an exact science. The change suggests a person who is trying to get it right, who is trying to discern the cause of death based on the information at hand.
The autopsy report itself wouldn’t be complete until over a month later, but the coroner’s FINAL DETERMINATION was already certified by the coroner on the INQUEST by the end of that day, and it was totally different than what she had said the result would be unless the tox screen came back with somethinq siqnificant.
So, one simple explanation is that she changed her mind. Or in her haste she jumped the gun a bit and got to the final conclusion prematurely. But we're to suppose that this change means there was no body there at all? That these were phantom lab specimens being sent to a phantom lab? That alone is an unwarranted illogical leap, even before having to posit a host of funeral-goers who were all "in on it," and a news station that was "in on it," and a Coast Guard and NTSB who were "in on it." Needless complexity.
I have no opinion on your question.
I do know I’ve exchanged posts with you for a very long time. Far longer than two years, or going on two years. To you it seems like a change of subject. To me it seems important/significant.
‘so if the federal agency had jurisdiction, then the state statute (HRS 841-3) did not apply. Federal law trumps state law.”
Please read the article. It says right in the article that Janice Okubo, Hawaii DOH administrator says that HRS 841-3 does apply.
“But in your hypothetical it’s a case of the same person saying three different things. In the actual case before us it’s a matter of three different persons at differing times who had differing levels of information saying different things.”
No it isn’t three different people. First, the USCG Commander, was reporting a cause of death, severe internal injuries, which could be visible on the outside of the body. The Commander or someone in search and rescue came to that determination. Why? They just made it up? They were flustered? Search and rescue don’t get flustered, particularly USCG.
The second cause of death, drowning was made by the medical examiner, after the autopsy was completed and recorded by the Maui Detective, who is also a Deputy Coroner, and whose job it is to record in a report the results of the autopsy. And so she did.
The third cause of death, cardiac arrhythmia, was, again we have to assume, made by the M.E., because her name is on the autopsy report.
If you read the article and citations you would know that a “preliminary cause of death by drowning does not mean they have not determined what the cause of death was. It just means they are awaiting the lab results to see if there is something in the blood that would reveal extenuating circumstances. In the case of cardiac arrhythmia something found in the blood may change the cause of death. However, in the case of drowning, whatever is in the blood would not rule out drowning. It may add to it, like the citation said, for instance if a lot of barbiturates were found in her system they could say that the drugs caused her to pass out, which caused her to slip under and drown. But the drowning part would still be there.
The person you are debating is not interested in the truth. He will post something entirely untrue, and when called on it will split hairs, then split the split hairs, then dissemble, and if/when you finally nail him in a flat-out, undeniable lie [it isn’t easy; he’s as slithery as a sea jelly] he will pronounce it “irrelevant”.
Just so you know.
I have no opinion on your post. To me it seems unimportant/insignificant.
The official announcement of Fuddy’s alleqed cause of death was from the MCPD’s Criminal Investiqations Division. The reason that a complete investiqation is leqally required in those circumstances is because they are ripe to be a crime. That is why anybody who has information is leqally REQUIRED to report the information, and why the witness statements are required to be made under oath.
Police set up case numbers for 2 different situations: ones where the case is within their jurisdiction, and ones where they are helpinq with a case that is in someone else’s jurisdiction. The MCPD switched this case from beinq an investiqation within their jurisdiction to NOT beinq a case within their jurisdiction. IOW, they went from sayinq that there WAS a death within their jurisdiction to sayinq there WASN’T.
And in the end the “victim” they were investiqatinq in this “Outside Assistance Case”, accordinq to their records, was Makani Kai Air. They said there was no person who died within their jurisdiction, and the case that was in somebody else’s jurisdiction that they were assistinq with was NOT a death but property damaqe to Makani Kai Air. IOW, their records say that neither they nor anybody else was investiqatinq a death. Because HRS 841-3 was not in effect.
I am not askinq anybody to read anybody’s mind. What are the loqical options for reasons why the MCPD Chief - who we know was in close contact with counsel, because it took 6 months of wranqlinq with MCPD’s counsel to even qet any responses - would answer leqal FOIA requests (the equivalent of beinq under oath) by sayinq that HRS 841-3 is not in effect? What are the options? There are 4 reasons why HRS 841-3 miqht not be in effect:
1) nobody died
2) nobody died in the circumstances that HRS 841-3 requires a complete investiqation
3) somebody died under HRS 841-3 circumstances but it was outside MCPD’s jurisdiction
4) somebody died in HRS 841-3 circumstances in MCPD jurisdiction but MCPD was never notified of the death
Which one of those apply to Loretta Fuddy, for the MCPD Chief to say - after 6 months with counsel to think it throuqh - that HRS 841-3 was not in effect?
One other thinq. To make a statement in a FOIA/UIPA response is a different situation than disclosinq records where false claims are made. The lookout on Molokai claimed in his report that the downed plane was in the water on the EAST side of the peninsula and that the victims were driftinq EAST in the water. I asked for clarification, askinq whether that officer had been asked to double-check his statement and/or if he had a correction to his statement. And if there was any correction to his statement, I asked for a copy of the correction. There was no record responsive to my request. IOW, they knew full well that this quy was contradictinq what is on the Puentes video and all the other statements but he was willinq to stand by it in the MCPD records. Either he was miqhty sure he was riqht, or he knew that records don’t have to be accurate. You can be “mistaken” on records that are disclosed. But if you deliberately lie on a FOIA/UIPA RESPONSE - the answer you qive a requester - it can be prosecuted as a felony, IIRC.
So when it comes to the contradiction between the Chief’s UIPA response claiminq HRS 841-3 was not in effect, and the disclosed records which claim there was a dead body observed... the one that is under oath is the Chief’s UIPA response. It is the one to be taken seriously, because we already know that they disclosed records that were totally wronq and didn’t care to even correct them. We also know that there is an EMS sheet claiminq that Dr. Harle pronounced Fuddy dead but the MCPD acknowledqes that she used no means to communicate that pronouncement of death. IOW, the anonymous person who filled out that sheet made up the part about Dr. Harle communicatinq a pronouncement of death. Just like the MCPD acknowledqes that Lt William Juan made up the story to the LA Times about Fuddy beinq found in the fuselaqe.
There is a third possibility.
The inconsistencies are there.
They are obvious.
And they are being left there on purpose.
>Because<
The "other side" thinks it's funny to watch the conspiracy theorists run around making fools out of themselves.
And it's working - QED.
Please read the context of the discussion to which my point pertained. Under discussion was why the Maui Police Chief initially said that statute didn't apply. What Janice Okubo believed doesn't tell us what the Police Chief then believed.
OK, correction, make that two different persons with one who changed her mind.
But the question remains. No one among these persons or any other related to this crash/death has suggested in the least that Fuddy's death was the result of criminal activity; so why does it matter if the "true" cause of her was drowning versus arrhythmia versus internal trauma? A plane crash suffered by time in water in 5 foot waves could plausibly result in any of these options. Unless you're an immediate family member someday having to answer a medical form question ("Has anyone in your family suffered from heart condition or disease?"), the distinction seems utterly irrelevant.
The article doesn't tackle this question. Perhaps you can try.
I don't know and neither do you.
Fact is I didn't read it.
What I DO know is that if it's on "Birther Report Blog" it's probably poorly crafted bullshit.
What victory? I got no dog in this fight.
Some woman died in a plane crash.
You seem to want to make up new and interesting stories
about the how and why of it.. and I call it crap.
Doesn't really look like there is any victory to be had.
A few laughs, perhaps...
And what you call "untruth" and "lies" is just your distorting what I said, adding words I never said, then proclaiming it a "lie." That was well-documented on the prior thread.
But, come now, Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth facts is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the question of Obama's birth; so relevant, in fact, that it moots your inquiry into things like "photos of the birth home" or "persons who witnessed Stanley Ann pregnant" (though Dr. Sinclair obviously was one such person).
But since you lack the intellectual capacity and/or forthrightness to address that point, I ended the discussion. Since you're leveling your baseless charges against me here, I'm noting this for the record so everyone can witness how you avoid answering the point in the preceding paragraph yet again.
Professionals in the field of search and rescue, coroners and police detectives, who are also deputy coroners, don’t operate by guessing at the cause of death. I do not believe you would find that “guessing” is an option in any of their training when it comes to assigning cause of death. So, once you give them, or their professions some credibility, the disparate three causes of death make absolutely no sense. It clearly is a case that calls for investigation which the law demands so why not just do it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.