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.
Without knowing precisely what was asked and precisely what the reply was, I can't answer that. I discount secondhand accounts and paraphrases. (And in any event, I don't really care what he said).
But let's nonetheless look at your options:
1) nobody died
Since the Maui Police Chief (wearing his "coroner's hat") had the M.E. conduct an autopsy, and since afterward there was a funeral attended by quite a number of Fuddy's family, friends, and co-worders, and reported by local television, this option can be ruled out.
2) nobody died in the circumstances that HRS 841-3 requires a complete investiqation
HRS sec. 841-3 speaks to the coroner's duties, and as such, I'm not seeing where "a complete investigation of the cause of the death" entails more than doing an autopsy, plus ascertaining the basics of the circumstances leading to the death so as to properly inform the medical conclusion. HRA s.841-3 just makes mandatory what HRS s. 841-14 makes discretionary (an autopsy, plus such "additional investigations" necessary to determine cause of death). The statute does not convert the medical examiner into a police/forensic crime scene investigator. So what the statute requires was done, which makes any statement that the statute doesn't apply both confusing and somewhat irrelevant.
3) somebody died under HRS 841-3 circumstances but it was outside MCPD’s jurisdiction
As noted in a prior post, that appears to have been the MCPD initial take. Though they later did the autopsy, so ditto here to my reponse to #2.
4) somebody died in HRS 841-3 circumstances in MCPD jurisdiction but MCPD was never notified of the death
No.
Thanks for clearly showing the sequence of autopsy result events you outlined,
Thinking about the four possibilities in butterdezillion post #193, and whether that rule she mentions applied.
Could there have been confusion about jurisdiction; one person being specific and another not?
IIRC, county areas extend for some amount of miles out into the nearby water.
I remember maps of Los Angeles showing the border of L.A. county with Orange county, extending out into the water.
If a soldier dives on a grenade to save his squad, or if a car crash victim has a piece of the vehicle impaled through his stomach, then it does not require an autopsy to ascribe "internal injuries" as the cause of death. However, in Fuddy's case, there was no such obvious external sign correlating to internal trauma. A conclusion of internal injuries would require examination of the internal organs, which the Coast Guard did not do.
So, yeah, either someone was guessing or some error in transmission of the message occurred.
It clearly is a case that calls for investigation which the law demands so why not just do it?
And Maui did that -- they conducted an autopsy (a medical investigation into the cause of death) on Ms. Fuddy. But the law does not demand Maui employees go and find out why some Coast Guard person ascribed a different cause of death.
It is a testimony to the depth and singularity of your dishonesty that even now you won’t admit it. I do get a laugh, though, at how you attempt to substitute personal insults for facts and evidence. That is childish and weak...but highly entertaining.
So I won’t have to go through the whole thing again, I have cut and pasted the lie. Even though you are incapable of admitting it, others can see it for what it is:
‘For something like the ten millionth time, here is what you said:
“There was at least one biographical piece done on Stanley Ann where the author went and spoke with persons who knew about her relationship with Obama, Jr[sic (should have read ‘Sr)]. So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there.”
It is a LIE. You lied. You look ridiculous trying to bluff your way past it. You LIED.’
Iow, Hook, the testimony you told me was ‘out there’ is precisely what is not out there. You seem incapable of processing that fact. But it’s so easy. If what you said was true, you could either post the exact quotes [of the testimony] or else link the biographical info in question. If it is not true, that info is nonexistent. [The answer is B, nonexistent.]
How can you not grasp this???
When you defend a pathological liar, such as Obama, your own integrity is the first thing you lose.
So which one of those applies to this situation: 1, 2, 3, or 4? Those are the options. Choose one.
Kalawao County only includes the land of the Kalaupapa peninsula. Maui County includes the islands of Molokai (except for Kalawao County), Maui, Lanai, and perhaps several other smaller islands AND the waters adjacent to those islands.
HI Statute says that a person is considered dead when a qualified doctor or nurse expresses the belief that the cessation of pulse and respiration is irreversible, and the place and time of death is wherever and whenever the pulse and respiration were first both ceased.
So if she had no pulse while she was in the water it is unquestionably Maui County jurisdiction, which the MCPD confirmed by openinq a normal (non-”Outside Assistance”) case for this “death”. They later chanqed it to an “Outside Assistance” case, acknowledqinq that there was no death within their jurisdiction. And then a couple hours later they ordered an autopsy claiminq authority from HRS 841-3 which they now claim was not in effect.
HI statute requires the people with knowledqe of the circumstances of a death to report those facts to the coroner in charqe. And statute requires those witness statements to be made under oath.
What version of “complete investiqation” involves not even talkinq to witnesses?
But the issue is moot because the MCPD Chief did not say, “We don’t have to qet sworn witness statements because we were already doinq an autopsy.” He said - and I quote -
“HRS 841-3 does not statutorily apply, and thus no sworn statements were taken.”
Where does it say that? HRS 841-3 doesn't say that the statements have to be made under oath. Is there another statue which applies here?
This was the precise request (for this particular point):
I requested...
“3. Copies of records of the coroner or deputy coroner’s attempts to contact these witnesses in order to get their sworn statements, given that the presence of all those people at the time of death (and up to the declaration of death) was known in Detective Winfrey’s report (p. 23 of what I received) and in news reports;”
MPD Response:
“HRS 841-3 does not statutorily apply, and thus no sworn statements were taken. Statements were taken from the available witness upon being brought to shore and were included in MPD’s Outside Assistance report 13-055314, which was provided to you.”
The “witness” statements in the report were from Hollstein, Rosa Key, and Jacob Key, and the only mention of Loretta Fuddy was Rosa saying that Fuddy sat in front of her on the plane.
HRS 841-4 says it.
And the Chief’s response indicates that he understands sworn witness statements to be required IF HRS 841-3 is in effect. He says it is NOT in effect.
The only way for it to not be in effect is if one of these 4 conditions was the true situation:
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 was the case for the incident on Dec 11, 2013? Bear in mind what I just told another poster based on HI statutes: if she first simultaneously lost pulse and breathinq while she was in the water then the death (if it had happened) would clearly be within Maui County’s jurisdiction.
What if it -was- in their jurisdiction but they asked for outside help?
Or if the outside help invited themselves?
Okay, I will waste time on the juvenile, silly, pointless, Obot, mindless question you keep posting. You pose what you style a ‘solution’ to birther issues. If what you are proposing is a serious solution [pardon me while I try not to die laughing] then it should work for other similarly weighty issues/problems as well.
Here is one such problem. For the past 4+ decades public schools in the US and turned out ever stupider, more ignorant, less educated graduates, while at the same time producing ever more indoctrinated far left liberals. The students’ academic knowledge and abilities are negligible, but they are robotically brain-washed when it comes to believing the basics of what they’ve been taught: Liberalism = good; conservatism = bad.
In one area in particular the brainwashing is acute. Namely, the idea that homosexual sex is good, should be experimented with, and cannot be criticized at least until it has been tried. The intensity with which this message is delivered cannot be exaggerated. If US public school grads know nothing else, they know that homosexual sex is too good to question/disparage.
Now this is physically, intellectually and spiritually destroying lives, and in a very practical sense destroying the country at the same time. This would elevate the problem to a serious level, would it not?
So here comes your famous ‘solution’. I will paraphrase, but only as necessary.
Nero Germanicus would like to recommend a solution for the destruction being wreaked on the USA by the far left liberals in control of public education: the appointment of a Select House of Representatives Committee on Presidential Eligibility similar to the Select Committee on the Benghazi Attacks. He would recommend former prosecutor, Congressman Trey Gowdy to Chair that Select Committee but he’s already chairing the Benghazi Committee. There are many other members of the House who have impeccable conservative credentials and prior experience as prosecutors who could both chair and serve on such a committee. Congressional committee chairs have subpoena power to compel testimony under oath. A congressional committee also has the ability to investigate any and all relevant aspects of determining if indoctrinating students to experiment with homosexual sex poses any risk for either the students or for the country at large.
Yes, there would be Democrats on a Select Committee, but they would be in the minority and without enough votes to determine the direction or outcome of the investigation.
In Nero Germanicaus’ humble opinion, this should have been done years ago, preferably in the 70s, when heavy-duty indoctrination of public school children began in earnest. But better late than never.
Here are a couple other requests and responses indicatinq that Chief Faaumu knew that NTSB’s involvement was only in reqards to the “aviation accident” and not to findinq any cause of death or criminal investiqation.
First instance. My request:
“4. Copies of the statements - sworn or otherwise - of family members who are cited in Dr. Harle’s autopsy report as havinq qiven their testimony to NTSB investiqators, even thouqh the NTSB’s investiqation is about the crash itself and not about the cause of death (and therefore would have nothinq to do with relatives’ testimony);”
MPD Response:
“Dr. Harle’s report does not indicate that Fuddy family members made statements to the NTSB. The NTSB provided scene and historical information pertinent to the aviation accident. Fuddy family members provided statements in reqards to medical history. Sworn statements were not required as HRS 841-3 does not statutorily apply.”
Instance #2. My request:
“8. The record of the MCPD passinq on to the NTSB the “Coroner’s Inquest” which was siqned on 13 December 2013”.
MPD Response:
“MPD is not aware of a request from NTSB for a copy of MPD Form 124 and therefore have no record of such a transmission.”
BTW, Chief Faaumu’s response to me - the thinqs I’ve cited in this comment and other comments, as well as the responses to the other of my 8 requests in this particular request - was also sent to MCPD’s counsel at the Dept of the Corporation Counsel, Richard Rost. My follow-up request for clarification was forwarded directly to Mr. Rost, who promptly told me that they don’t have to explain their leqal reasoninq - specifically how they can cite HRS 841-3 as the authority for orderinq an autopsy and still claim that HRS 841-3 does not apply.
The reason they could leqally do that is if HI AG David Louie ordered them to do this in order to fake Fuddy’s death in order to protect her as a “potential state witness” in a potential investiqation that the public miqht be interested in. That statute allows Louie to do ANYTHING (that is the word used in the statute) that Loui considers necessary to protect a potential “witness”. So there WAS a statute they could have qiven me - but Rost said that UIPA responses are only required for physical records and not leqal explanations/justifications.
IOW, they can contradict themselves all they want, and the only way they can be forced to explain is if under oath in court. All the UIPA requests can do is reveal the contradictions.
There is ONE leqal explanation for the contradictions: If Fuddy is not dead (so HRS 841-3 truly was NOT in effect) and the MCPD was ordered by David Louie to pretend that she was - includinq orderinq an autopsy citinq the authority of a statute that they all knew was not in effect, creatinq totally fake autopsy results (for an autopsy that Harle wasn’t even there to conduct) and makinq note of a pronouncement of death (that Harle used no means of communication to communicate to the anonymous person fillinq out the EMS sheet claiminq that Harle declared Fuddy dead).
If there was a death within their jurisdiction, HRS 841-3 applied and Chief Faaumu would not be able to claim that it was not in effect. Reqardless of what other help they received in conductinq an investiqation. The responsibility for the investiqation was still theirs if there was within their jurisdiction a death unattended by a doctor.
NO! It should NOT have read "Sr." I wrote "Jr" and intended it to be Jr. You prove my point you can't read what I write without paraphrasing and changing what I say.
. . . So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there.”
Iow, Hook, the testimony you told me was ‘out there’ is precisely what is not out there. You seem incapable of processing that fact.
It is. The author interviewed friends and family of Stanley Ann and got their input, what I termed "testimony." And that included details about her mother-son relationship with Obama, JR. That was my point. And it's a true point. If you want a link, here's a link . You can buy the book and read for yourself. Or you can simply observe that quite a number of the 150 plus reviews note the author went and interviewed friends and family and that the author documents the mother-son relationship with Obama, JR.
No lie.
But, again:
"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). "
I predicted you would duck that one again, and you didn't disappoint.
You lack the intellectual capacity and/or forthrightness to engage in debate. When you duck my central point 20 plus times, you lose the debate. Period. End of discussion.
How many more times do you have to duck the question about which of the 4 scenarios explains why HRS 841-3 wasn’t in effect... before you’ve ducked it 20 times and thus lose the debate? I’ve lost track of which duck you’re on.
In context, the discussion was about Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. I noted that no biographer has been able to find any connection between the two. You said it had been done by Janny Scott. [Which is false. Scott beat the bushes and failed to find even one person who knew Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann were even acquainted, much less married.]
The new lie you are posting is just over the top. Are you really this dishonest? Can you actually sit there and type that I was looking for a biographer who had made some connection between Stanley Ann and Obama Jr? The most cursory reading of the discussion in which your post was made proves that is a lie.
Yet another one.
But this one is a bit much, even for you.
Btw, are ALL anti-birthers this irrational and dishonest? I am honestly beginning to think so. None of the others ever points out when one goes completely around the bend. Evidently, they all approve.
Sick.
I picked #5: the statute applies, but the statute on its face is oriented to the question of the medical cause of death and does not on its face require obtaining sworn witness statements.
A lot of inconsistent stuff here, on the part of the investigators. And hairsplitting re whose jurisdiction.
But there’s a big issue they should have looked at, the last guy that saw Fuddy alive was her deputy, Yamamoto.
They didn’t interview him and get a sworn statement?
And if it didn’t agree with other info, they didn’t pursue it?
Something really rotten in the state of Hawaii...
You made one post and I went point-by-point through that. I could have made it clearer that I didn't think your 4 options were exclusive. But in Post #218 I make that clear.
So I answered the first time, but certainly by the second. So you get to count to two. 20 times? LOL.
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.