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?
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.