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.
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).