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.
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.