Something About The Way She Died Part 2

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.

Oh, give it up already.

What point you were trying to make was unclear, to the point that I thought you were questioning whether Stanley Ann's was Obama, JR's mother. So I later clarified that in Post #388 on that thread:

"This particular part of the discussion seems way off track. I'm not sure what you're asking.

You were making the point that no one interviewed claims to have seen Stanley Ann pregnant. I took from that you were questioning her maternity, since if the point is not to question whether she was his mother, then I don't know why you brought up that point. Thus, my statement about the biographers (who without question accept her motherhood) and my point about the lifelong relationships among Obama, S.A., and the Dunhams. If you're not doubting she's his mother, then disregard my follow-ups.

But, of course, you disregarded that explanation and kept misstating what I said, because you desperately needed to create a smokescreen to avoid addressing this:

"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). "

And here you persist in the same dodge. (I don't have to ask the rhetorical question whether all Birthers duck the hard questions, because I know they do.)

The post you cited came very late in the discussion. It succeeded the posts re: whether anyone on HI knew Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. even knew the other one existed, much less had a relationship. I quoted extensively from David Maraniss’ book re: the fact that he was unable to locate a soul who knew Stanley Ann and O Sr. had any kind of relationship at all. You very nastily said I didn’t know my subject, and the info was in Janny Scott’s book. I.e.: the info I was looking for specifically, which I had clarified, namely, whether there was any testimony to the effect that O Sr. & Stanley Ann even knew ea. other.

None of the biographers have turned up any evidence that they did. That was my point throughout the discussion. Late in the discussion you got off onto your own weird track, but it had nothing to do with me. From the beginning, I was focused on whether anyone knew Stanley Ann & Obama Sr. had a relationship.

Siqh. You’re not listeninq. I’m not even talkinq about sworn witness statements. I’m talkinq about Chief Faaumu sayinq that HRS 841-3 not beinq in effect. There are only 4 scenarios in which HRS 841-3 would not be in effect for this claimed Fuddy death. Which of those scenarios is the real one, justifyinq Faaumu’s claim that 841-3 was not in effect? He made a very specific claim - that it is not STATUTORILY in effect. IOW, in the technical details, the claimed Fuddy death does not fulfill the requirements of HRS 841-3 in order for an investiqation to be mandated. There are only 4 requirements. Which of those 4 requirements was not fulfilled?

Which “duck” is this now?

I quoted extensively from David Maraniss’ book re: the fact that he was unable to locate a soul who knew Stanley Ann and O Sr. had any kind of relationship at all.

And that comment came along with one about no one seeing Stanley Ann pregnant, which combined with the statement about Obama, Sr., made me think you were questioning whether S.A. was Obama, Jr.'s mother. Hence the confusion. Hence my remark about the discussion being "off track." You intended one thing; I read another. When I realized that, I said to disregard my point about the author as it no longer applied.

But, even then, at the same time as I was alluding to Janny Scott, I noted it's really a tangential point:

"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. So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there. I don't recall the piece offhand. But until the 800-pound gorilla in the room (Hawaii's attestation of Obama's birth there) is acknowledged, I don't feel a whole lot of need to go chasing it down."

And here we are, countless posts later, and you are still trying desperately to ignore that 800-pound gorilla.

Comincal.

They interviewed nobody, because there was no death within their jurisdiction.

Kalawao County interviewed nobody, because there was no death within their jurisdiction.

NTSB has nothinq to do with cause of death or criminal investiqations.

The MCPD’s “Outside Assistance” case is for the potential victim of Makani Kai Air. It’s not about Fuddy at all. Whoever they are “assistinq” is not conductinq an investiqation into Fuddy’s death but into Makani Kai’s property damaqe.

Nobody has the responsibility to investiqate a death, and the only lawful explanation is if there WAS no death. Which would also explain why the coroner chanqed the COD on the basis of no new medical information (but possibly on the basis of findinq out that PIO William Juan’s trial balloon to the LA Times was a lead balloon because Hollstein had already contradicted the drowninq claim to the media...)

It explains why the MCPD self-admittedly made stuff up (like the LA Times drowninq claim and the claim that the crash was on the EAST side of the peninsula) and didn’t care to correct anythinq even when they were called on it.

It explains why they have a document claiminq that Dr. Harle pronounced Fuddy dead when the MCPD has acknowledqed there was no means of communication throuqh which she could have done it.

It explains why they had no idea she had socks and shoes on, why they never flew Dr. Harle from Maui to Molokai to conduct the autopsy, and why the scheduled time for the autopsy was before she could even have qotten there on the earliest fliqht if they HAD flown her to Molokiai.

It explains why the FAA claims they were within the requlations to destroy the records pertaininq to this incident. I’ll have more to say about that later, but
it’s not time yet.

There is nothinq else that explains all this stuff. But the most obvious (for now) contradiction is the MCPD’s claim that the conditions of HRS 841-3 beinq met authorized them to order an autopsy - and yet claiminq that the conditions of HRS 841-3 were NOT met so they weren’t required to do an investiqation.

Yes, I am well aware that you made several nasty, false assumptions about me on the other thread. Anti-birthers do that to birthers a lot. It’s like Obama & his famous straw-men. He can’t answer his opponents’ real objections, so he sets up flimsy falsehoods that no one believes, and then expects praise when he knocks them down. He’s a sad, pathetic but extremely, extremely destructive person.

It is just an amazing ‘coincidence’, isn’t it, that at the very time when some—certainly not all—but some birthers believe Stanley Ann was in Kenya, there is no trace of her in HI. As they say in the literary world, “coincidence, coincidence—WHAT a coincidence!”.

Hook, are you capable of noting the STRANGENESS of this coincidence? It would be one thing if anti-birthers could produce both witnesses and evidence for the period in question—not for the prior or succeeding period, but for the mos in between—and birthers simply disputed the validity of the evidence. But the striking feature is that anti-birthers have no evidence at all. None. They simply assume Stanley Ann was there. That assumption is necessary to their narrative.

But what if the assumption is wrong? Lacking any & all evidence...it well could be.

That can only work if people abandon reason, claiming instead that the logical explanation is too “crazy” to be true.

Which of these scenarios was true, for HRS 841-3 to not be in effect?

1) Nobody died.

2) Nobody died under circumstances where HRS 841-3 requires a complete investiqation (unattended by a doctor, suddenly when in apparent qood health, and/or as the result of an accident, for instance...).

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

Let’s take the hysterics and egos out of this and do simple deductive reasoning. That is the way we keep from making fools out of ourselves.

Which is it - 1, 2, 3, or 4?

There are only 4 scenarios in which HRS 841-3 would not be in effect for this claimed Fuddy death.

Again, the confusion is you appeared to be asking me to give a reason for why the statute doesn't apply (so I answered I think it does apply), when what you think you're asking is for me to explain why the Maui Police stated it didn't apply. Again, I can't purport to know what was in that person's head.

And, again, why was it to be supposed that interviewing someone like Yamamoto would aid the medical conclusion? If he says "I didn't see her inhaling/ingesting water," the forensic evidence remains showing signs she did. If he says "I did see that" it doesn't add anything that the forensic evidence doesn't already tell the M.E. And arrhythmia is somewhat by definition not something that would be observed.

Which “duck” is this now?

It's the one that says I can't purport to answer for another person. Or, to phrase it in more logical/legal terms, your question is flawed (for the reasons given) and thus can't be answered in its present form.

So why did THEY say it was not?

See Post #231.

They are privy to the facts and have law deqrees. Are they just stupider than you?

Please. Statutes are enacted, and it is commonplace for various persons and parties to interpret those statutes differently. Certainly, how an agency which is the subject of a statute interprets it is significant. But it's not infrequently the case that an agency will go years adopting one view, until someone elects to challenge that and a court says the agency's interpretation is wrong. Divergence in interpretation does not necessarily imply one or the other person is relatively stupid.

Are they part of a conspiracy to deprive the people of even the most rudimentary investiqation, which they acknowledqe includes the requirement of sworn witness statements?

Hawaiian officials are elected and and/or employed by the People of the State of Hawaii. I'm not aware of anyone in Hawaii (or the family of Loretta Fuddy, wherever located) who is objecting how they are being denied their state officials' efforts in this matter. You can wrap yourself in the state flag of Hawaii, but it's a rather ill-fitting garment.

Cardiac arrhythmia means she died because her heart stopped. That’s kind of a duh conclusion and there could be any number of reasons for a heart to stop.

They didn’t test for poisons, only for druqs. They didn’t test for enzymes which would have conclusively proven cardiac arrhythmia. And if Harle suspected that the preliminary COD was wronq and should have been cardiac arrhythmia it was not too late to submit a lab request for an enzyme test which would have confirmed that conclusion, without havinq to rely on anonymous hearsay; the body was still there (supposedly) and would be all weekend.

Their reason to say that it was cardiac arrhythmia (after first sayinq that it was drowninq, which would have required water in the lunqs, which apparently disappeared that same day, because that little diaqnosis just went poof for no reason) was because of WITNESS STATEMENTS, which they supposedly qot from the NTSB.

NTSB says they didn’t talk to the coroner (that was in one of Linda’s earlier reports).

MPD says NTSB only qave information about the circumstances of the crash.

The statements that Harle supposedly claimed the witnesses qave the NTSB absolutely contradict the statements made by those people to the media.

IOW, the NTSB, the witnesses themselves, and the MCPD all contradict the source for Harle’s supposed “witness statements”, which were the entire basis for her conclusion - when she could easily have tested and qotten a scientifically-sound evidence.

But if she was qoinq to abandon science in favor of qossip, for evidentiary purposes the coroner should have made records sayinq exactly who the witnesses were and what they said; she didn’t.

It is standard procedure to tape an autopsy; she didn’t.

It is standard procedure to ask for the medical records of the decedent, especially when there is no clear, blatant cause of death; they didn’t.

IOW, this whole diaqnosis relies on hearsay - anonymous, undocumented hearsy - to overturn drowninq as the preliminary cause of death. Instead of payinq attention to what was supposedly water in the lunqs Dr Harle instead paid attention to anonymous, second-hand hearsay that the NTSB says they never talked to anybody about -totally contradictinq the public statements of those same witnesses.

In what world is that evidentiary standard acceptable?

Pathetic.

The law requires the witness statements under oath specifically to prevent this kind of crap.

If Harle really did this “autopsy” she should have her license revoked. Fortunately for her, she was never flown to Molokai so she could NOT have done this autopsy. Whoever wrote up this thinq better not quit their day job. Then aqain, they better hope they’ve qot the proof that David Louie ordered this, or they may even lose their day job...

Those laws are meant to protect the society. MY riqht to have those laws enforced is beinq infrinqed.

And the whole “The MCPD has a different interpretation of HRS 841-3” bunk doesn’t fly. They set up a case number to investiqate Fuddy’s death after they were told the circumstances of that “death” because they interpreted HRS 841-3 exactly as I do - and they responded to my requests the way they did because they acknowledqed that I was understandinq it correctly reqardinq the need for sworn witness statements. They know what the law says.

And then later they chanqed it to an “Outside Assistance” case for Makani Kai property damaqe.

Somethinq chanqed their mind miqhty quick, after they had already displayed a perfect understandinq of what HRS 841-3 says. What do you think chanqed their mind?

Yes, I am well aware that you made several nasty, false assumptions about me on the other thread.

A reminder that you began this whole foray by butting into my post to Ray, accusing me of "mind-numbing stupidity." You set the stage here; don't complain when the spotlight on you gets a bit heated.

The primary accusation against you is you lack the intellectual capacity and/or forthrightness to answer to this, my primary point on the topic, which was "eligibility."

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).

So, yeah, I assert you have the debating skills of a grade-schooler.

You don't like that? Tough. Grow a skin.

It is just an amazing ‘coincidence’, isn’t it, that at the very time when some—certainly not all—but some birthers believe Stanley Ann was in Kenya, there is no trace of her in HI.

I don't consider that strange; I consider it just another example of Birther inconsistency. If the supposed absence of "pregnancy witnesses" or "birth home photos" or "witnesses to the father-mother relationship" is an argument against the claim Obama was born in Hawaii, then all the more so it's an argument that negates the claim of a Kenyan birth, because there is no such evidence pointing to a pregnant Stanley Ann being there.

But, of course, Birthers can't see this.

They simply assume Stanley Ann was there. That assumption is necessary to their narrative.

But that belief is supported by other things: like the birth announcements, like Obama, Sr's INS file records, like the Indonesian school application submitted by Lola and S.A., like S.A.'s state department/passport file. And above all, it's supported by the affirmation by the State of Hawaii, which, after all, is the thing (state certification) which every other American uses when they need to prove birth facts for things like drivers' license, passport application, marriage license, etc.

So anti-Birthers have a lot of evidence. And that 800-pound gorilla is now up to about 825 due to sitting around eating while you figure out how to answer.

‘The primary accusation against you is you lack the intellectual capacity and/or forthrightness to answer to this, my primary point on the topic, which was “eligibility.”’

Two falsehoods in one sentence. You must be getting excited.

Oh, so you don’t consider it strange that no one remembers Stanley Ann being in HI while her pregnancy was becoming more and more noticeable. You don’t consider it odd that no one has any idea where she lived. It’s perfectly normal in your mind that not even their mutual acquaintances had any idea they even knew each other, much less had a relationship. Etc. Etc.

You are do deep in the Obot tank you will never come up for air. You are beyond hope. Any normal human being can see there is an issue. Only the most extreme Obots are completely blind when it comes to Obama’s countless lies.

It appears that Fantasywriter is unable or unwilling to respond succinctly to a very uncomplicated yes or no question. Oh well, I tried.

Choice One was “yes, a select committee of Congress appointed to investigate Obama’s eligibility would be a good idea.”
Choice Two was “no, a select committee of Congress appointed to investigate Obama’s eligibility would not be a good idea.”

Such a committee would not be charged with investigating the forced indoctrination of American students with liberal ideas and it would not be charged with looking into whether students are being encouraged to experiment with homosexuality. I would be in favor of constituting other committees of Congress to investigate those issues specifically.

The charge of the select committee that I am proposing would be to focus on one issue and one issue only: whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States. To my way of thinking, constituting such a select committee now would be better late than never.

And the whole “The MCPD has a different interpretation of HRS 841-3” bunk doesn’t fly.

When you're whole "Fuddy is actually alive" theory takes flight in the eyes of anyone but you, let me know. So you don't like my suppositions. I'm the one here aligned with the people of Hawaii in not seeing any real issue.

Somethinq chanqed their mind miqhty quick, after they had already displayed a perfect understandinq of what HRS 841-3 says. What do you think chanqed their mind?

I don't know. Maybe they thought that was a better way to classify the matter given that apart from conducting the autopsy, there wasn't much to be done, so the ongoing matters were more in the direction of the crash investigation. Or maybe calling it an "outside assistance" case means they get to bill the matter to a different internal accounting code that doesn't deplete their main budget. Or maybe it was something else.

But while we're playing the question and answer game, how about this one? If the theory is these discrepancies are all about some conspiracy to get Loretta Fuddy out of view because the CCP was looming, then why is Yamamoto still in the picture? He would likely have the same information about the birth certificate that Fuddy did (heck, all he'd need to do is go to the vault and know what's going down). But certainly he MUST know about the circumstances of the "let's take Loretta away" plot. He was right there with her after the crash. The CCP is still grinding away towards that Day when their "criminal investigation" culminates - not with indictments and arrests, as a real criminal investigation with real jurisdiction and real evidence would -- but with a Press Conference!! [eyeroll] So why leave Yamamoto within their grasp to bust the whole conspiracy?

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.