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.
I said, “The MCPD’s “Outside Assistance” case is for the potential victim of Makani Kai Air.”
To reduce confusion I should have said, “Makani Kai Air was the potential victim of any potential crime that their “Outside Assistance” case was investiqatinq.”