Patric McCarthy

Yes, but if you essentially give a vote of no-confidence to the State's Medical Examiner, the implications go far beyond this single case. If any steps towards reopening the case were to be taken, you would have to call in an independent forensic pathologist as Step #1 to either exhume the body and re-examine everything or at least review the evidence (perhaps the famed Dr. Michael Baden). Would the family want this done?

If you just reopen the case without doing this first, then the testimony of the M.E. becomes suspect in every single case/conviction that he/she has played a role in. Any defense attorney worth a dime would make conviction appeals based on this.

I'm quite sure this is why there has been reluctance to reopen the case.

Did anyone happen to catch Inside Edition Friday night? Unfortunately, I was unable to see it. This is all I can glean from their website (along with a photo of the child) http://www.insideedition.com/

**********

New Evidence?

New Hampshire authorities have agreed to reexamine the case of a little boy found dead in the mountains more than a year ago based upon information dug up by a private investigator hired by the family. As Inside Edition reports, the family long had questions about the child's disappearance and death and now may have some evidence that points to murder.

***********

They never went to the place where Patric was found, and did not treat it as an unattended death. The authorities turned a blind eye to this and always treated it as a lost boy even after being told repeately their was foul play. The coordinates of the Bridge and the coordinates of (PLS, place last seen) when inversed are only 75.15 ft. Bridge to condo approx 300 ft. Amaizing isn't it. Monday the temp was in the 60's and at night the low was mid 40's their was no rain on monday. According to the ME Patric died on 13 Oct 03, Monday before Midnight ? His 10th Birthday was 12 Oct 03.

Jim -

Like everyone else here, I'm truly sorry for your loss. And if the police did not treat this as an unattended death, that was absolutely a mistake ... a big one. But that doesn't change the fact that at least according to the published statements I've seen, the M.E. is stating that hypothermia was the cause and the State is standing by that - as they must. Your P.I. is doing a lot of grandstanding, but if you truly believe it was a homicide, you need to attack the problem at its source. Right now, that is the autopsy report. You can never have a homicide prosecution in a case where the casue of death is listed as "natural." My advice based on 13 years with a major law enforcement agency is to pursue Baden. He made his name in New York and routinely reviews cases of this nature. Good luck.

I really don't feel that it is that suspicious that the boy was found such a distance uphill from his PLS. Our SAR unit had a search May 29th in Petersburg, NY where two children were found two and a half miles from their PLS, 900 feet up the mountainside, and these children were not even hypothermic. These lost person statistics are very useful for predicting possible search subject behavior, but they are just statistics, not a rule.

What is really hard to believe is that a child murderer would carry his victim several miles up a rugged mountainside. The unresolved grief of the family is understandable, as is their unwillingness to accept closure on their tragedy, but let's not let our sympathy lead us to besmirch our public safety officials based on nothing more than unsubstantiated heresay. I for one am going to require a lot more evidence before I accept that the Medical Examiners Office and the New Hampshire State Police engaged in a conspiracy to cover up a murder.

As someone that followed this case (with sadness) last year, and also as someone that works as a forensic death investigator (at a large ME office) I felt compelled to add a few thoughts.

It’s neither uncommon or unusual for families to dispute official “cause and manner” of death certifications. It’s also certainly not unheard of to call in outside “experts”, such as Dr. Baden (whom I’ve met) to re-review or interpret autopsy findings. On occasion, albeit rare ones, additional evidence is obtained that would justify the “changing” of official rulings. It’s generally neither a slight, nor a “stain on a department” for this to occur (unless it’s a happens all the time). Anyone involved in the medicolegal field fully understands the “scrutiny” under which we operate. Given this climate, determinations of this sort are made only after full review of the evidence and facts, and are generally NOT made lightly. It's always about the truth, and I would doubt very seriously any of the “cover-up” theories I’ve heard so far. That’s the stuff of CSI episodes, not real life.

If this new evidence does not dispute and significantly call into question, the physical and empirical evidence used to make the initial determination in the first place, there will be little chance that a change in those findings will occur. Mark S is 100% correct in that it’s not the police investigation you need to dispute at the moment, it was the ME that made the determination that the death was due to “cold exposure” (cause) d/t an accidental chain of events (manner). Once that determination was made, there is really nothing for police to investigate at that point. I will tell you, that it'll be tough to dispute the autopsy findings. There are pretty significant differences (from an autopsy findings standpoint) between deaths from “cold exposure” and those from homicidal violence. There are virtually no findings in exposure deaths and, depending on the modality of death (such as strangulation, shooting, stabbing, etc), there are generally multiple, easily documentable findings in deaths due to homicidal trauma.

I’ve been involved in a bunch of “exposure” death investigations, and there is often some incidental trauma noted (from falling or stumbling in the end stages), as well as other “odd” behavioral findings. But in general, the trauma would clearly differ from that found in a violent homicide death. Without straying further off topic (which we already are), John makes a real good point, and I’m sure it was taken into account in the initial determination. I’ve been involved in hundreds of homicide investigation and Patrick’s final location was in such a place as to discount it as a “realistic” body dump site. Murderers are not likely to bushwhack uphill several THOUSAND feet, through dense NE mixed conifer/hardwood forests to dispose of their victims. It just doesn’t happen, and goes against almost all logic and known behavioral characteristics for those who commit such acts. Again, that may happen on TV, but it really doesn't in real life. That alone is pretty a pretty good indication that this death is likely exactly as officials currently say it is.

In any event, I hope that the family eventually finds peace in whatever the outcome to this horrible and tragic death is. My condolences to the McCarthy family, Mr. Murray and all those who've been personally touched by this terrible loss.

p.s. I represent no agency, nor official source of information and these thoughts are just my own ramblings on this subject.

Many news stations and papers that have interviewed the PI hired by the McCarthy family cannot disclose the facts of this case for legal reasons. Such as names of the suspects and explicit eveidence. By doing so will open up the Mcarthy family, newsstations as well as the PI to liabilties until NH authorities consider this an "open case" and a "crime."

I have been following this case closely as I am a CC resident. One thing that should be pointed out is the reason why Patric's clothes were never found. The killer bragged to a friend and teacher who spoke with O'Connell and MA police that he suffocated Patric in the dirt, removed his clothing (which explains why they were never found in the most extensive NH search in history) and move his body to make it appear that Patric got lost in the woods. Please see www.record-enterprise.com article. The killer also told three people Patric was going to "get lost" in the woods and told two people that "patric was not coming back." Even if the killer lied about suffocating Patric and he did infact get lost in the woods, the result was still death. That is still grounds for manslaughter as opposed to murder one. Either way a crime was committed.


Personally, I feel that is wrong for the NH authorities to not investigate an unattened death of a child. Any unattended death requires a complete and proper investigation. The NH authorities should join O'Connell and the McCarthy family in the fight for justice and re-open their investigation. I feel badly for the McCarthy and Murray families as they continue to fight for their little boy. I also commend the investigator for his commitment to this case and doing it for no reason other than justice for Patric.

[QUOTE=kdarmon]
One thing that should be pointed out is the reason why Patric's clothes were never found. The killer bragged to a friend and teacher who spoke with O'Connell and MA police that he suffocated Patric in the dirt, removed his clothing (which explains why they were never found in the most extensive NH search in history) and move his body to make it appear that Patric got lost.

It would appear that if the above statements are factual the police have a suspect who confessed to killing Patrick.
I suppose the next question would be....is said suspect credible?
It makes no sense to me that the FBI and State Police would ignore this.
There has to be much more to the story than what we have been told.

According to Todd Bougardis, NH Fish and Game, a lost adult traveling up hill gets no farther than 3/4 mile and 2 miles down hill. This is a national statistic. Therefore, it is unreasonable that Patric could travel two and a quarter miles up mountain. Bougardis also said that Patric's body was "way off the charts." So far that they waited till the 5th day to search the remote area.

Also, it is common for people in the last stages of hypothermia to strip their clothes, BUT it is the trail of clothes that lead to a body. I am not convinced that Patric died of hypothermia. Why would he take his coat, hat and socks off, but then put his shoes back on. From the logical perspective, that does not maky any sense to me.

Suffocation cannot be ruled out, because there are no hard and fast indicators of suffocation to be found in autopsy.

Most importantly, what are the chances that a suspect would tell three prior to the trip that Patric will get lost in the woods, and in fact the story told to the police was that Patric got lost in the woods while returning to the condo from the playground. NH authorities were aware of this information while searching for Patric and told Fish and Game that there is a possibilty they he may have been "dumped" up in the mountains.

The private investigator spoke with two witnesses who were told prior to Patric death, that he would not be coming back from the weekend. And in fact, Patric was found dead.

Is seems to me that NH State Police have an agenda and do not want to open this case, regardless of what evidence has been revealed.

As a citizen of the state of NH, I feel compelled to question the competence of the authorities. This was not the only case they have refused to investigate the possibility of foul play...we cannot forget Maura Murray. What do they have to lose in investigating Patric's death...in the end they may have to say they were wrong, but it may save the life of a future victim...In my opinion, a child's life is more important than anyone's professional reputation.

To clarify a few facts presented by the "P.I.". The minimum temperature on October 13, 2003 in and around Lincoln, NH was not 43 degrees. It was 28.2
Please see http://www.almanac.com/weatherhistor...h=10&year=2003

The very next day, probably in the middle of the night of the 13th and 14th, the temperature dipped down to 27 degrees.

Also, the FBI, NH Fish & Game, and NH State Police all investigated, interrogated, examined and reviewed all possible connections directly and indirectly to Patric. For a "witness" (who was a child, 13) to "come forward" a year later and make a statement that the "murderer" told her of a confession is, well, you figure it out.

Further, only the state police know what was told to them and confirmed by immediate family and friends who were close to Patric. Patric and his brothers weren't wearing socks the day they went off to play in the woods. A P.I. hired by one family member not involved in Patric's life on a day to day or week to week basis would not. After being on vacation, playing in the woods, football on his birthday in the rain, running around all weekend, there wasn't clean laundry left on Monday. Not that any 10-13 year old boy wants to take the time to put on socks when they can just throw their shoes on and run outside to play. Patric was not wearing socks the day he became lost, nor were his brothers.

All of the comments submitted by those who are knowledgeable of the conditions and aware of the facts of such a tragic situation as this, and how they occur, are taken with comfort. Patric is missed so much.

Nice to hear from you Margaret (MLBSW)! Your response is very enlightening...The evidence is overwhelming and JUSTICE will be served for Patric!

Here is a little more from the “for what it is worth department”. Sorry for it length in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeC

According to Todd Bougardis, NH Fish and Game, a lost adult traveling up hill gets no farther than 3/4 mile and 2 miles down hill. This is a national statistic. Therefore, it is unreasonable that Patric could travel two and a quarter miles up mountain. Bougardis also said that Patric's body was "way off the charts." So far that they waited till the 5th day to search the remote area.

---

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it is hard to know where to start.
I don't know if Mr. Bourgardis said this. If he did, I don’t know that Mr. Bougardis was quoted accurately. I don’t know if Mr. Bougardis was involved with the search. I don’t know if you are telling us what someone else said that Mr. Bougardis said. You don’t have his statement in quotes so I don’t know if you are paraphrasing or maybe trying to paraphrase him. I seriously doubt that a professional would say something like this because it is a patently ridiculous statement. He may say that 60% (made up number) of the lost adults who are located and are going in an uphill direction are within 3/4 of a mile from the PLS (place last seen). It is certainly not impossible that he could have gotten farther. Many of us (even an old fat man like me) walk uphill and get much farther than 3/4 of a mile. Any person walking with purpose could easily travel a mile an hour in most terrain. Yes, I know, and have been in terrain where I have been slower also. I am talking about similar terrain to where I believe Patric was found and the terrain I believe that he traversed. To say that he could not have gotten farther than 3/4 of a mile is again ridiculous and I am giving Mr. Bougardis the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t say it as listed. Also why would he be referencing LPB (lost person behavior) information for an adult, not a 12 year old.

I had stated previously that:

Quote:

---

Many 12 year olds will follow the path of least resistance when lost. 58% of them go downhill. 87% usually stay on the path or trail as well. That should have brought him down the drainage not up. Strange but not totally out of order. 93% of children in this age group are found within 2 miles of the PLS.

---

Of course that means that if 58% of them go downhill then 42% go uphill. If 93% are found within 2 miles of the PLS then of course that means that 7% are found farther away. When you consider that about 50% are actually found in the house where they have supposedly disappeared from maybe you can see how useful this number actually is. We had a 12 year old girl walk north for 4 days and traveled about 8 miles. She actually walked over the CT border into Massachusetts and was located by a Mass state trooper. Some of the terrain was pretty difficult and the nights were uncomfortable at best. Low 50 degree nights with a gentle rain a few nights. It could have had a very different outcome. 12 year olds can and do travel long distances. What motivated him. Did he know that he was lost? Was he sure that he was on the right path? When he figured out he was on the wrong path did he panic?

When the POA (probability of area) is calculated it is based upon assumptions. Those assumptions may be based upon the LPB as well as being fine tuned or totally changed based upon the experiences of the IC or more likely the search commander. How many searches for 12 year old boys have been done in that area? After a search is done of an area the search team returns and is debriefed to determine what the POD (probability of detection) was. This is another estimate that the searchers have to make. Every time this is done then the POA is recalculated to determine where searchers should be allocated. If evidence of passage is found during a search then again the POA is adjusted in that area and nearby areas. Questions about the quality of the evidence be it footprints or clothing articles may adjust the LKP (last known place) also again totally changing the POA and making the IC reallocate searchers and resources to new areas.

I hope that you are starting to see that this is more of intelligent guessing than anything else and the past experience is a considerable driving force. You are trying to keep the odds with you by playing the best cards. In this POA calculation there is what is called ROW. ROW is the rest of the world. It is the places that you don't believe that the subject is located. The ROW can never be discounted from the POA equation and is never 0% because it is always possible that is where the subject is.


To speak to some of the other matters that has been raised.

I am not saying that everything was done the best that it could have been. I don’t know. I believe less than half of what I read from newspapers and even less than that from online sources. This is based on my experience.

Hopefully anyone more knowledgeable than I will straighten me out if I misspeak. MAVS00 if you know the answer to this or anyone else please jump in. If Patric did die of hypothermia what he actually dies from is a fatal heart arrhythmia. Does that leave any enzyme changes in the blood like a heart attack does that could be traced? It would not surprise me if it didn’t but I don’t know.


About:
His clean hands. The body was being washed with heavy rains and winds for several days after his death. It doesn’t really surprise me that the hands where clean especially if his hands were directly exposed to the elements or in rushing water. His body was found in a drainage correct?

His lost clothing articles. Again hypothermia can cause people to do strange things. The fact they were not found only proves that they were not found. You cannot prove that they are not there unless you find them elsewhere. Without knowing his actual route of travel it is hard to know where the clothing is or what route to search. If you find it in a place that it shouldn’t be (like somebody else’s house) then you may have some physical evidence of possible wrong doing at some level but not finding clothing is meaningless.

I don’t know how much Patric weighed but carrying him (it sounds like some people think he was killed elsewhere) up to that location would not have been an easy task not to mention the possibility of being spotted and leaving evidence of your own passage. I know that most of the people on this board have hiking experience. Can any of you imagine the difficulty of carrying a child like that over your shoulders up that hill, or two people carrying him slung between them, thinking that you could be spotted at any time? Many of us have carried 30, 40, 50, even 60 or more pounds in a well fitting backpack. I would consider carrying this weight over the shoulders to be a very difficult task. Again, this is not impossible but it seems very unlikely without some evidence to support the idea.

The dirt in his nose. If he was climbing up the drainage and slipped backwards with his face in the dirt could that have forced material up his nose? Is this very uncommon?

Again, I don’t know the answer to these questions. I am not saying it is impossible that a mistake was made. I said from the start that there were things about where he was found that seemed strange to me also. That doesn’t mean that strange things don’t happen. I don’t have access to the evidence that the investigators had, but, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt unless someone can convince another M.E. to look at the case and see if he comes to different conclusion as too the manner of death.


Keith

Previous postings indicated Low Temp on Oct.13,2003 to be 28.2. At the top of Mount Washington, ( 6200' ) Yes! Not in and around Lincoln. The " P.I. " was correct. 43 degrees.
Based on the National AVERAGE, if a victim is found to have travelled uphill from PLS that distance is .75 miles. If a victim is found to have travelled downhill from PLS that distance is 2.0 miles. This young boy was found 2.25 miles uphill from PLS. 3 times the National AVERAGE!
Disturbing facts surround the absence of his clothing (Coat,Hat). Law enforcement and ME claim hypothermia. A Victims clothing is always found nearby the body.
Reports indicate prior to the family going away for the Columbus Day weekend that a statement was made by an individual close to the victim that indicated " Patric would not be coming back " and that " Patric will probably get lost". Can anyone give me the statistical chances that these two statements could have been made and the outcome result as it mentioned????
Many curious issues surround this little boys death. Stay Tuned!!!

Why have there been no postings since 2/2/2005 to respond to the questions surrounding the issues about the statements which were made by an individual closest to Patric that he would not be coming back? And also to the statements which were made prior to the Family going away that, " Patric will probably get lost." Is there anyone out there who can dispute the illogical statistical chances of someone making a statement that, #1. a child is "not coming back." And #2, A child will probably get lost? And the end result is just that. CHILD LOST,CHILD DEAD.
Please do not be shy. Make your comments and try to justify Patrics death as just a poor unfortunate accident.
The judgement of an un-biased Forensic Pathologist has indicated that Patrics death was certainly not accidental. The truth is on it's way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TQuest

Why have there been no postings since 2/2/2005 to respond to the questions surrounding the issues about the statements which were made by an individual closest to Patric that he would not be coming back?

---

Because there is nothing to comment on. There are unsupported claims, without evidence or corroboration, against a medical examiners report. Without something tangible, there's no way to make a meaningful comment.

A child is dead, and it's a tragedy. But so far, there is nothing to show it was anything beyond an unfortunate mishap in the woods.