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.
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.”