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. So you're rather disingenuously changing the facts underlying the question.
The drowning statement was done as a preliminary cause of death. Preliminary causes of death are just that -- preliminary. They are done without full information and without the clinical and forensic methods done in a full autopsy.
The other statement at issue is the Coast Guard Commander claiming the cause was internal injuries. Here a quizzical mind should be asking the question "How the hell does someone in the Coast Guard involved just in the rescue operation purport to gauge internal injuries?" Or for that matter "How the hell does a Coast Guard Commander -- who has no medical training -- purport to state this conclusion?"
The article pulls a fast one on this point: "It seems the Commander would have received this information about Fuddy’s injuries from someone trained to make such determinations or why would he repeat it." Well, gosh, in the absence of identifying this "other person" and verifying that person in fact had the requisite medical training, the author's assumption is one big case of JUST MAKING IT UP. Right?
So your mistake and confusion stems from your giving equal credence to these three statements. Only one (the autopsy) was a complete medical/forensic investigation that supersedes any earlier, preliminary supposition.
Ergo, no conflict.
That's what the article is pointing out.
And the author makes the blunder of giving equal dignity to the three statements without realizing the one (the autopsy) is based off superior information. You here make one
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.
“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.