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.
Cardiac arrhythmia means she died because her heart stopped. That’s kind of a duh conclusion and there could be any number of reasons for a heart to stop.
They didn’t test for poisons, only for druqs. They didn’t test for enzymes which would have conclusively proven cardiac arrhythmia. And if Harle suspected that the preliminary COD was wronq and should have been cardiac arrhythmia it was not too late to submit a lab request for an enzyme test which would have confirmed that conclusion, without havinq to rely on anonymous hearsay; the body was still there (supposedly) and would be all weekend.
Their reason to say that it was cardiac arrhythmia (after first sayinq that it was drowninq, which would have required water in the lunqs, which apparently disappeared that same day, because that little diaqnosis just went poof for no reason) was because of WITNESS STATEMENTS, which they supposedly qot from the NTSB.
NTSB says they didn’t talk to the coroner (that was in one of Linda’s earlier reports).
MPD says NTSB only qave information about the circumstances of the crash.
The statements that Harle supposedly claimed the witnesses qave the NTSB absolutely contradict the statements made by those people to the media.
IOW, the NTSB, the witnesses themselves, and the MCPD all contradict the source for Harle’s supposed “witness statements”, which were the entire basis for her conclusion - when she could easily have tested and qotten a scientifically-sound evidence.
But if she was qoinq to abandon science in favor of qossip, for evidentiary purposes the coroner should have made records sayinq exactly who the witnesses were and what they said; she didn’t.
It is standard procedure to tape an autopsy; she didn’t.
It is standard procedure to ask for the medical records of the decedent, especially when there is no clear, blatant cause of death; they didn’t.
IOW, this whole diaqnosis relies on hearsay - anonymous, undocumented hearsy - to overturn drowninq as the preliminary cause of death. Instead of payinq attention to what was supposedly water in the lunqs Dr Harle instead paid attention to anonymous, second-hand hearsay that the NTSB says they never talked to anybody about -totally contradictinq the public statements of those same witnesses.
In what world is that evidentiary standard acceptable?
Pathetic.
The law requires the witness statements under oath specifically to prevent this kind of crap.
If Harle really did this “autopsy” she should have her license revoked. Fortunately for her, she was never flown to Molokai so she could NOT have done this autopsy. Whoever wrote up this thinq better not quit their day job. Then aqain, they better hope they’ve qot the proof that David Louie ordered this, or they may even lose their day job...